BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Contingencies Fund Account 2012-13

Ordered,
	That there be laid before this House an Account of the Contingencies Fund, 2012-13, showing:
	(1) A Statement of Financial Position;
	(2) A Statement of Cash Flows; and
	(3) Notes to the Accounts; together with the Certificate and Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—(Greg Clark)

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State for Culture Olympics, Media and Sport was asked—

National Museums (2010 Spending Review)

Andrew Gwynne: What assessment she has made of the effect of the 2010 spending review on national museums outside London.

Edward Vaizey: The 2010 spending review protected free admission to the permanent collections of our national museums by limiting cuts in resource funding to 15% in real terms. Resource grant funding for national museums will reduce by only 5% in 2015-16, and they will be given flexibility to manage their budgets independently.

Andrew Gwynne: With the Science Museum Group’s projected deficit to increase from the current £2 million to £4 million or even £6 million, depending on the outcome of the spending review, what confidence does the Minister have in the future viability of that group, and in it maintaining the historically important collections at Manchester’s Liverpool Road station site, home of the Museum of Science and Industry?

Edward Vaizey: Since the Science Museum Group took over the running of the Manchester Museum of Science and Industry, visitor numbers have risen by 30%, so the answer is there; the group is running MOSI incredibly effectively, and will continue to run its three or four outposts outside London effectively.

Caroline Dinenage: While Government money is, of course, important, will the Minister join me in celebrating the amazing fundraising work of our museums, including the Submarine museum in Gosport, which has raised more than £6.5 million through heritage funding and lots of fundraising in order to restore HMS Alliance?

Edward Vaizey: I am delighted to endorse what my hon. Friend says. There is a huge amount of philanthropy outside London and we have made it far easier to give to the arts. We have invested through the Catalyst Fund in endowments and fundraising capacity.

Hugh Bayley: The artefacts in the science museums, including locomotives in the National Railway museum, are expensive to maintain and that museum is concerned it will not have enough money for conservation, preservation, research and dissemination of information about its collections. Will the Minister address specifically that point in his evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee?

Edward Vaizey: I am sure I will specifically address that point, because I am sure the Committee will ask me about it. The Science Museum Group has aired a lot of its concerns, and we will certainly address them.

Entertainment Industry (Low-paid/Unpaid Jobs)

Kerry McCarthy: What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on trends in the number of low paid and unpaid jobs in the entertainment industry.

Edward Vaizey: The national minimum wage underpins wage levels for those at work and applies equally in the creative sector as elsewhere. The Government support industry in its efforts to provide employment opportunities for young people in the entertainment industry through initiatives such as the creative employment programme, the charity Creative Access, and the forthcoming launch of UK Music’s skills academy.

Kerry McCarthy: I thank the Minister for that response, and I particularly welcome what he said yesterday about paid internships in the creative industries. It is still the case, however, that many professional freelancers are expected to work for nothing or for very low pay. Sometimes, everyone involved in a production is being paid except for the musicians and actors who are fronting it up. What will the Minister do about that?

Edward Vaizey: The exploitation of interns is unacceptable, and as I said, the music industry is working hard. In particular, UK Music takes a strong lead on the issue and is setting up the UK music skills academy. The charity Creative Access, with the BPI, will give work experience to 300 individuals who will be paid. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady who continues to campaign on this matter and many other issues in the music industry.

Tony Baldry: Does my hon. Friend consider that the question seriously underestimates the value of extras and walk-on parts in the theatre and
	the palace of varieties? One needs walk-on parts to swell a progress, start a scene or two—to be deferential, or glad to be of use. Is not one of the problems with too many theatre troupes that everyone wants to play the role of Hamlet, which is just not possible?

Mr Speaker: I hope that was not autobiographical in any way.

Edward Vaizey: I concur with my hon. Friend that not everyone can be Hamlet.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Minister realise that there is such a pool of talent out there, including people with high, graduate qualifications? Surely we could use those people as a resource in our schools, for example, or leading community groups and so on. We must think of new ways and channels to use these young people to give them a start and an income.

Edward Vaizey: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, so I hope that he will support the Government, who want to allow people to teach in schools if they have the ability to inspire our young people, rather than shut them out artificially by forcing them to take a teaching degree.

Pete Wishart: Surely it cannot be right that musicians and entertainers are about the only group of industrial workers still expected to work for nothing in the 21st century. Will the Minister guarantee that no Government or Government-sponsored event will now ever allow musicians to go unpaid?

Edward Vaizey: If the hon. Gentleman wants to give me some examples, I will certainly look into them, but I would not expect the Government to start from that point of view.

Broadband (Rural Areas)

Andrew Bingham: What progress she has made on delivering broadband to rural areas.

Edward Vaizey: Twenty-six local broadband contracts have now been signed under our rural broadband programme, representing over 70% of funding. Derbyshire supplier bids are expected in July, with installation commencing in 2014, and the first cabinets are expected to be rolled out in advance of the Tour de France cycle race, which is scheduled to visit England in July 2014.

Andrew Bingham: May I stress how vital faster broadband is for the vitality and viability of the rural economy? I often refer to it as the fourth utility. Faster internet access will be crucial to rural areas if we are to not only retain our businesses, but attract new ones. Will the Secretary of State reassure my local businesses that the Government remain committed to faster broadband rolled out to rural areas such as the High Peak?

Maria Miller: I can say absolutely yes, which is why we have got a £1.2 billion infrastructure programme already under way, meaning that more than 10 million
	more homes and businesses will get access to superfast broadband by the end of the Parliament. Furthermore, the rural community broadband fund is already further supporting rural communities, having made its first award to Rothbury in Northumberland. My hon. Friend will be aware that many local authorities with large rural communities in areas such as Lancashire, Cheshire and Cambridgeshire are going further with investment. I know that he will be doing all he can to encourage his local authority to do likewise.

Stephen Timms: The Financial Times reported last week that the National Audit Office was to deliver a very critical report on this exercise, arguing that it failed to deliver a proper bidding process, after only BT bid, saying it lacked competition and describing it as
	“a train crash waiting to happen”.
	Why did Ministers forget the importance of competition in this exercise?

Maria Miller: The right hon. Gentleman will also know that the NAO has said that we have some of the best and most transparent processes for evaluating the work going on in this area, so I would encourage him to read the full report.

Neil Carmichael: Good progress is being made in Gloucestershire on broadband, but does the Secretary of State agree that it is important to work with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in promoting local small businesses in places such as Stroud, Dursley and Nailsworth?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We must ensure that when we have access to superfast broadband in local areas, businesses understand its value, and that is why we have always said that this is not only about investing in the roll-out of this infrastructure, but about ensuring that businesses understand how it can help them.

Helen Goodman: Last week, I attended the launch of Digital Teesdale. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Labour Durham county council and the voluntary group Barnard Castle Vision, which are the partners that have delivered it, and will she say why she is signing contracts for delivery in 2016, when her target is for delivery in 2015?

Maria Miller: I thank the hon. Lady for raising such an important project as the one in Durham. It is such projects that can make a real difference, filling in the gaps of the national programme. On the delivery of the programmes, we are pushing hard to get roll-out as quickly as possible, and she will of course know that a considerable number of local authorities have already opened their first boxes. That progress will continue apace. As I said earlier, 70% of the funding allocations have already been signed off.

Broadband

Cheryl Gillan: What progress she has made on rolling out high speed broadband across the UK.

Maria Miller: Two thirds of premises in the UK now have superfast broadband available and 100,000 more homes and businesses are getting coverage every week. Average speeds increased by 69% last year.

Cheryl Gillan: I do not think that this is going fast enough, and that is not good enough. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the New Economics Foundation, which has published a report this week showing how the country could get much better value for the billions that are about to be spent on HS2 by diverting some of those billions into superfast broadband? Does she agree with Sir Charles Dunstone, the chairman of Talk Talk, who also says that HS2 money would be better spent by investing in high-speed broadband, and will she please stand up for this with her colleagues in Cabinet?

Maria Miller: My right hon. Friend clearly has many things to say on high-speed rail, but I will leave that for another Minister. I can tell her that 100,000 more homes and businesses every week are getting access to superfast broadband. We are leading the way in Europe on investment in broadband, and we are in the top three of EU members states on coverage, take-up, usage and choice.

Julian Smith: The Government backed North Yorkshire early on and we are about to deliver on having 90% homes with superfast broadband by early next year. We need a little bit more money to get to 95%. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how much we need?

Maria Miller: I am always happy for hon. Friends to meet the Minister responsible, and I am sure he will make that a priority. [Laughter.] In all seriousness, my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) is right: we want even more coverage in the country. I would perhaps ask him to look in detail at how the rollout of 4G will help his community, which, after all, will leave the country with 98% coverage in its access to superfast facilities.

Sport (West Lancashire)

Rosie Cooper: What steps she is taking to increase participation in sport in West Lancashire.

Hugh Robertson: The latest participation figures show that 37% of people in West Lancashire are playing sport once a week, which is above the national average. In addition, Lancashire is hosting both an Ashes test and the rugby league world cup this year, which I am sure will maintain enthusiasm for sport in the county.

Rosie Cooper: Participation rates in the north-west have fallen and Conservative-run West Lancashire borough council has closed Skelmersdale sports centre with no replacement in sight, provided unplayable football pitches due to inadequate drainage, and has made deep cuts in leisure service provision while sitting on tens of millions
	of pounds in reserves. Does the Minister think that the borough council’s approach is the right one to achieve an increase in participation rates and honour the Olympic legacy?

Hugh Robertson: The hon. Lady needs to be careful with her figures. If she is arguing that the participation rates have fallen, that is only for the winter. I was told that rugby league, which is big in her part of the world, had a week in which 96% of all its fixtures were cancelled. That explains the drop-off in participation. [Interruption.] Well yes; because when there is snow on the ground you can’t play rugby league. I would have thought that as the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) could have probably worked that out. The fact is that participation rates are above the national average in the part of the world the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) represents. I encourage local authorities to make use of both the Olympic effect and the many sports fixtures coming to her part of the world this year to drive up rates.

Clive Efford: At best, the active people figure for West Lancashire has flatlined, and participation rates in the north-west have gone down. Overall, the country has seen a reduction of 200,000. It is less than a year since the Olympic games and what have we got? Some 68% of school sports organisers tell us that fewer children are doing sport and that they are spending less time doing it. While the rest of us looked forward to an Olympic legacy, the Government were wrecking school sports partnerships. Now they are blaming the weather for adult figures going down. Rather than riding on the back of fluctuations in the climate, will the Minister get to the Dispatch Box and tell us what he is going to do to deliver a sustainable Olympic legacy?

Hugh Robertson: The first thing is that the hon. Gentleman has got his figures wrong. The second is that anybody with an iota of common sense would accept that if there is snow on the ground rugby league cannot be played, and that if there is ice on the road people are unlikely take their bicycles out. In the period since 2005 when we won the bid, up to the moment when, across two Governments, we delivered the games, London was the first host city to deliver a sustained increase—of 1.4 million—in participation. I pay tribute to the policy devised by James Purnell and carried through by the right hon. Members for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) when they were Secretaries of State. We should celebrate the fact that this country has achieved what no other country in the history of the Olympic games has ever achieved. Ranting and carping is pretty stupid.

Tourism

Damian Hinds: What assessment she has made of tourism spend in the UK.

Stephen Mosley: What assessment she has made of tourism spend in the UK.

Maria Miller: In the 12 months to April 2013, tourism spend by international visitors in the UK was up 13% to a record £19.9 billion. This result highlights the importance of tourism in this country, which contributes £115 billion on average to the UK economy each year.

Damian Hinds: That is very encouraging, but looking forward a decade, what projection has my right hon. Friend made of demand for passenger arrivals capacity and beds? Is she confident that the industry can meet that demand to maximise the export earnings opportunity?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is right that we should always keep these sorts of things under close review, which is exactly what we do. He will be aware that Sir Howard Davies is undertaking an independent review of airport capacity and how we can better use existing capacity. He is due to report in 2015. As for accommodation, the figures for the UK overall show that we have a one-third capacity available in hotel accommodation across the country. There are particular issues in London, which is why I very much welcome this week’s announcement of £700 million of investment in luxury hotel accommodation at Nine Elms, which we should applaud the Mayor for securing.

Stephen Mosley: I recently had the pleasure of attending the launch of Chester Civil War Tours, a new small company showing people the sights of the siege of Chester in the civil war, including the battlefields and also the pubs. What role does my right hon. Friend think heritage and culture have in promoting tourism in our towns and cities?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of culture in supporting the tourism industry. That is why I was so pleased that the Treasury was able to understand the arguments we put forward and that we have secured such a strong deal for the culture sector in this country.

Bridget Phillipson: The situation facing the tourism industry in the north-east is unfortunately less positive. We have seen a reduction of 60,000 in the last year. What action will the Secretary of State take to ensure that the north-east is not left behind?

Maria Miller: The hon. Lady is right to say that we want every corner of the country to have a strong tourism industry. That is why our “Holidays at Home are GREAT” campaign is the biggest ever domestic tourism campaign aimed at exactly what she is looking for, which is to boost tourism throughout the UK.

Alison McGovern: Few city regions have seen as much growth in the visitor economy as Merseyside over recent years. This has been underpinned by the work that the local authorities have done in the boroughs. What conversations has the Secretary of State had with Communities and Local Government Ministers about ensuring that the spending review does not put that investment at risk?

Maria Miller: Through the work we do on the GREAT campaign, we bring together Ministers from many different Departments to ensure a co-ordinated approach to how we market Britain abroad. The hon. Lady’s part of England has a strong story to tell when it comes to marketing Britain, which is something I hope she would work with me on.

John Whittingdale: It is excellent news that visitor numbers and visitor spend rose last year to record levels, but my right hon. Friend will also be aware that the UK still slipped by one place, from seventh to eighth, in the list of top 10 destinations. Can she say what is being done to attract more visitors to the UK, particularly from China, many of whom are still being deterred by the cost and difficulty of obtaining visas?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we always need to be actively marketing Britain abroad. That is where our GREAT campaign, with £37 million already invested, comes into its own. It is a campaign that this country can be proud of. As for visas, we have made significant improvements to the situation that we inherited. We have now seen an increase of, I believe, around 30% in visas from that country.

David Hanson: The tourism economy in Wales is worth £5 billion a year and employs 8% of the population, including many in my constituency. This week the Welsh Government announced a new target to increase that figure by 10%, including by increasing inward tourists from Ireland and the United States in particular. Does the Secretary of State welcome that and will she commit to meet and work with the Welsh Government to promote Wales, as well as England and the UK?

Maria Miller: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. We work closely with the Welsh Government through VisitBritain. This is a shared objective. VisitBritain has a clear target of increasing international tourism by 33% by 2015, and that will mean some 200,000 extra jobs in this country. Tourism is an important sector, and we have some excellent support plans in place.

Tessa Munt: My constituency is particularly dependent on tourism. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Treasury about the capacity for reducing VAT in line with some of the countries on the continent? That might help the sector to grow, and would be particularly helpful to the tourism business in Somerset.

Maria Miller: I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making, but there would clearly be a significant cost associated with any such change to VAT. I prefer to invest positively in our country as a place to visit. At the moment, the Treasury is not convinced that there is a correlation between a cut in VAT and any benefit in terms of figures.

Arts/Creative Industries

Ben Bradshaw: What assessment she has made of the contribution of the arts and creative industries to the economy.

Maria Miller: The Centre for Economics and Business Research estimates that arts and culture had a turnover of £12.4 billion and a gross value added of £5.9 billion in 2011. The creative industries contribute £36.3 billion in gross value added, accounting for almost 3% of gross value added in the UK in 2009.

Ben Bradshaw: Copyright theft costs our writers, artists and musicians billions of pounds a year. Three years ago, this House legislated on action to tackle that. When is the Secretary of State going to show that she is not in the pocket of Google and the other internet service providers by doing something to enforce the will of the House and enforce the law?

Maria Miller: The right hon. Gentleman will know, given that he had my job in the previous Government, that the detail of that legislation requires a great deal of working through. That is a huge priority for this Government and I can assure him that we are working closely to ensure that copyright support is put in place as soon as possible.

Damian Collins: Does the Secretary of State agree that creative business incubators such as the workshop that is opening in Tontine street in Folkestone this month, along with the Government’s seed enterprise investment scheme, will give a real boost to start-up businesses in the creative sector?

Maria Miller: Absolutely. The Government’s investment in culture and the arts will ensure that those start-up firms have the necessary stimulus to enable them to thrive.

Dan Jarvis: A key element of any strategy for the arts and the creative industries must include support for all regions of the country. In these challenging economic circumstances, the Government should be working with local authorities to make the case for culture and to explain its social and economic benefits. Will the Secretary of State tell us what she is doing to help councils to support the arts and the creative industries in their local communities?

Maria Miller: I am not doing what the hon. Gentleman is doing in supporting a council such as Newcastle, which wanted to cut its arts budget by 100%. I hope, given his question, that he now realises that that was a big mistake. I am glad that the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) intervened and overruled the decision that he had made. I could give him many examples of the work that we are doing to support the regions in this way, and I draw his attention in particular to our comments yesterday on the Arts Council, which is investing £174.5 million this year in national portfolio organisations outside London. It is of course the Arts Council that has the role of supporting regional culture and arts, and I think it is doing a good job.

Swimming

Michael Connarty: What recent discussions she has had with her counterpart in the Scottish Government on the development of swimming in the UK.

Hugh Robertson: I meet Scottish Ministers regularly to discuss a range of sports policy issues. Chief among those are the Glasgow Commonwealth games in 2014 and the Youth Olympic games bid for 2018, both of which include swimming competitions.

Michael Connarty: I commend the Government in England for making it compulsory at key stages 1 and 2 to teach children to swim. However, that entitlement does not exist in Scotland. There has been a call from the Amateur Swimming Association not only to train swimmers for the Commonwealth and Olympic games but for better swimming safety. It wants a national entitlement to swimming teaching. In 2011, six children died by accidental drowning in Scotland and 47 in the UK; the figure for adults in the UK in that year was 407. Surely it is a human right for people to learn to swim so that they do not drown if they fall into the water.

Hugh Robertson: I do not know about a basic human right; it is a matter of common sense and safety. There is no doubt that there is a straightforward correlation between young people learning to swim and curbing deaths by drowning. I would encourage anybody to ensure that every single one of our young children is able to swim.

UK City of Culture Status

Jim McGovern: What assessment her Department has made of the potential benefits to a city of achieving UK city of culture status.

Edward Vaizey: The potential benefits of becoming the UK city of culture will be increased investment in cultural activities, a great deal of media coverage and a huge increase in visitor numbers.

Jim McGovern: I am sure the Minister will be aware of early-day motion 156, tabled in my name, which supports Dundee’s bid to be UK city of culture in 2017. I realise that it would be difficult for him to say that he supports one city, but is he aware that not one single SNP Member has signed that early-day motion? Is that because they would prefer Dundee not to be part of the UK in 2017?

Mr Speaker: I think we will give that one a miss, because the Minister has no responsibility for the policies of the Scottish National party. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is chuntering from a sedentary position that he has signed it, but I am not concerned with who has or has not signed it; I am concerned with the matter of ministerial responsibility. The hon. Member for Dundee West (Jim McGovern) has made his point; it is on the record, so we will move on.

Cultural Relations (Australia)

Andrew Rosindell: What her policy is on the repatriation of indigenous Australian human remains from UK cultural institutions.

Edward Vaizey: The Government continue to endorse the joint declaration signed by the Governments of the UK and Australia in 2000, which states that human remains in UK collections that come from Australia should be returned wherever possible. Decisions on individual claims are a matter for museum trustees or the governing authorities of the institutions involved.

Andrew Rosindell: I thank the Minister for his reply, but he will of course understand the importance not only to the Australian people but to the Aboriginal community in particular of returning these human remains based in UK institutions. What will Her Majesty’s Government do this year to ensure that the process of returning those remains takes place as quickly as possible?

Edward Vaizey: I met the high commissioner a couple of years ago to discuss this issue, and it is certainly the case that the Natural History museum, for example, has already agreed the return of 138 sets of remains to the Torres Strait islands. I was pleased that the museum was able to host a Torres Strait islander to work with it on scientific and museum skills. I will certainly continue to keep an open door to the high commissioner, should he wish to raise the issue with me again.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr David Morris. Not here.

Science Museum Group

John Leech: What assessment she has made of the potential effect on the Science Museum Group of further budget reductions.

Edward Vaizey: The Department receives evidence from sponsored bodies as part of the spending review. The Science Museum Group has projected an operating deficit from 2014 and it is assessing a range of options to address this. As I said earlier, the national museums will see a resource grant funding reduction of only 5% in 2015-16 and a great deal of new freedoms.

John Leech: I congratulate the Minister and the Secretary of State on securing a great deal from the Treasury to secure the future of museums in Manchester, Bradford and York. Does the Minister agree with me that, rather than consider charging an entry fee, the Science Museum Group should be looking at other ways of generating additional revenue from its visitors, not least as 5 million people have visited the four museums in the last 12 months?

Edward Vaizey: Yes I do. It is this Government’s policy to maintain free admission to our national museums’ permanent collections, but museums can, of course, raise revenue in other ways. People who visit them using the free entry spend money while they are there. We have also, of course, made great strides in helping to increase philanthropy.

Tourism

Andrew Stephenson: What steps she is taking to promote domestic tourism.

Maria Miller: Working with VisitEngland, the Government are investing £60 million between 2011 and 2015 to promote domestic tourism, which I believe is a key driver for economic growth.

Andrew Stephenson: The Hoseasons group, based in Earby in my constituency, helps millions of holidaymakers to choose self-catering accommodation or short breaks in tens of thousands of properties across the UK every year. What is my right hon. Friend doing to work with companies such as Hoseasons in boosting domestic tourism?

Maria Miller: Companies such as the one my hon. Friend has identified are working actively with us on the campaigns that we run and are often partners investing cash in these campaigns as well. With 104 million overnight trips in England made by British residents, their work is successful—and that success is clear to see.

Draft Communications Data Bill (Media Ownership)

Katy Clark: Whether the draft Communications Data Bill will include provisions on media ownership.

Maria Miller: Lord Justice Leveson's report made a number of recommendations on plurality and media ownership. This summer, the Government will explain how they plan to seek views on the issue and implement Lord Justice Leveson's recommendations. The Communications Data Bill is being led by the Home Office, and will not include provisions on media ownership because media plurality does not form part of communications data policy.

Katy Clark: Does the Secretary of State agree that ownership of newspapers and other media is too concentrated in the hands of too few, and that we need a cap on ownership in the different sectors of the media?

Maria Miller: As I have said, Lord Justice Leveson dealt with that issue in his report—albeit not in a detailed manner—and we have agreed that some issues need to be considered further, in particular the lack of clarity in regard to how plurality should be measured and what constitutes a sufficient level of plurality. I hope that the hon. Lady will join me in seeking answers to questions of that kind in the coming months.

Andrew Bridgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that any media ownership regime must strike the right balance between allowing plurality and allowing growth in the industry?

Maria Miller: Absolutely. We do not want companies to become unwilling to invest in the United Kingdom for fear of running into an unnecessary cap on their expansion.

Topical Questions

Mike Freer: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Maria Miller: What a week it has been for British sport! Yesterday England romped home in the cricket match against South Africa, Andy Murray won at Queen’s Club, and Hampshire’s own—indeed, Basingstoke’s own—Justin Rose became the first Englishman to win the United States Open since 1970. I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing our cricketers good luck in the weekend’s Champions Trophy final and in this summer’s Ashes. I wish Andy Murray good luck at Wimbledon, and I wish all the British golfers—whether they are from Hampshire or not—good luck in next month’s Open.

Mr Speaker: I might just add that Greg Rusedski, a former US Open finalist, and other coaches came to New Palace Yard yesterday to help to teach state school children how to play tennis.

Mike Freer: May I turn my right hon. Friend to the issue of equalities, which is also part of her portfolio? Can she tell me what progress has been made in the removal of the spousal veto from the gender recognition certification process?

Maria Miller: I pay tribute to all the work that my hon. Friend has done in this regard. As he will know, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill is currently being debated in the other place. We are continuing to discuss the issue that he has raised with transgender groups, but I gently remind him that it is actually an issue for the Ministry of Justice. Perhaps he could raise it with my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor.

Harriet Harman: May I take up the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark)?
	I hope the Secretary of State agrees that, despite our political differences and the occasional blip, and despite the fact that we are by no means out of the woods yet, we worked well together on the basis of trust and good faith, and worked well with the Liberal Democrats, in trying to sort out the question of press complaints following the Leveson report. However, as she has just said, we have yet to deal with the important issue of monopoly media ownership, which prevents the market from operating by preventing new entrants to it, as well as being bad for democracy.
	May I ask the Secretary of State to do what the Government did before, namely set up and lead cross-party talks on the question of media ownership? We—and, I am sure, the Liberal Democrats—would be very willing to work with the Government to deal with that aspect of the Leveson inquiry, which is important and which has not yet been tackled.

Maria Miller: I observed no blips in our working together; I thought that it went very well indeed.
	We have already agreed on how to deal with the issue raised by the right hon. and learned Lady. We will seek views on it in the summer. Lord Justice Leveson himself said that he was not able to devote enough time to considering media plurality matters in detail, and I think that we need to do so now. I think that if we are to provide the sort of broad policy framework that we need, we should seek views on those matters rather than engaging in further political discussion.

John Pugh: What assessment have the Government made of the impact of TV advertising on online gambling? What is the cumulative effect on the nation of a surfeit of Ray Winstone?

Hugh Robertson: I am not sure we directly know the answer to that, but I will find out and write to my hon. Friend.

Linda Riordan: Will the Minister inform the House on when a decision will be made on the future location of the Arts Council collection, and if northern towns like Halifax will be considered as a home for the collection?

Edward Vaizey: I had a meeting with the hon. Lady and a delegation some time ago, and she put a very compelling case for Halifax. We will continue discussions with the Arts Council about the future location of the Arts Council collection. Should we start to make progress, I will keep the hon. Lady informed.

Therese Coffey: It is the Britten centenary, and the Aldeburgh festival has been another rip-roaring success. Will my right hon. Friend join me in celebrating arts outside the metropolis, including the fantastic performances of “Grimes on the Beach” that we have greatly enjoyed in Aldeburgh in the last week?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I had the privilege of attending the Aldeburgh festival a week and a half ago. It is an amazing event, celebrating also the life of one of Britain’s greatest artists, Benjamin Britten.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the BBC should be open and accountable, and does she share my concern that the director of diversity will give me any details I want about ethnicity but will not give me any answer about education—about how many privately educated people work in the BBC and how many state-school people work in the BBC? Many people suspect it is stuffed full of people from private schools. Is that right?

Maria Miller: I can understand the hon. Gentleman’s desire for transparency and accountability from all public bodies, and that is something I would join him in supporting. Issues to do with personnel are very much matters for the BBC, however.

David Davis: When News International was allowed to buy The Times newspaper, the condition was set that the editor could not be changed without the explicit approval of the non-executive directors. In the event that such a convention was broken, what would the Secretary of State’s powers of intervention be?

Maria Miller: My right hon. Friend will know that John Witherow has been appointed as acting editor of The Times. Appointing a new editor of The Times is a matter for the independent national directors and shareholders. There would be an opportunity to intervene to enforce the requirement for separate publications to be maintained; that is really where my powers come into play.

Luciana Berger: The international festival for business is a national event, which next year will take place in Liverpool in June and July. A quarter of a million visitors are expected. It is supported by the Prime Minister, and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is providing significant financial resource. What support will DCMS provide to ensure that the cultural offer that supports the conference and the other events is significant and promotes all that the top arts and creative industries have to provide?

Edward Vaizey: The hon. Lady raised this point in yesterday’s Opposition day debate. She also extolled the many cultural virtues of Liverpool, and I heartily endorse her comments. I am sorry that I did not answer her question then. As I understand it, the Arts Council is talking to Liverpool about the cultural support it can give around the international festival, and I will talk to the Arts Council about its plans, and write to the hon. Lady.

David Mowat: The England football team is a valuable national asset, yet of the millions of pounds raised, over 50% goes to the professional game, not the impoverished grass roots; I speak as a director of Warrington Town football club, an example of the impoverished grass roots. Does the Minister intend to follow the Select Committee recommendation and make it Government policy to make a switch in regard to that funding?

Hugh Robertson: The Government can clearly direct funding only when they provide that funding, which they do through the whole sport plans and the football foundations. However, the Football Association is a signatory to the new code we set up in 2010 at the last review of the list, whereby it is pledged to give 30% of its UK broadcast income to grass roots sport.

Mark Durkan: I am sure the Minister will agree that the advice from Derry/Londonderry to the shortlisted cities for the second UK city of culture would be that inclusion, integrity and imagination are key to any successful bid in a given year. Will he encourage the BBC to be as well engaged with the second city of culture as it has been with the first?

Edward Vaizey: I did not get the chance during the earlier exchange to congratulate Dundee, as well as Hull, Leicester and Swansea bay, on making the shortlist, and I thoroughly
	endorse what the hon. Gentleman says. I do hope the BBC will support the next UK capital of culture, as it supported Derry/Londonderry.

Julian Huppert: What support is the Department giving to the Tour de France next year in the Yorkshire stages and the stage from my Cambridge constituency down to London?

Hugh Robertson: I think, in the nicest possible way, that the hon. Gentleman may wish he had not asked me that question. The Government have provided a considerable amount of underwriting. They have underwritten the whole event and provided the balance to make up a budget of £21 million. Unfortunately, Cambridge has yet to contribute at all, and that is one of the issues we will address in the weeks ahead.

Ian Lavery: Newcastle United football club is also a national asset. Does the Minister share my utter bewilderment and that of tens of thousands of Newcastle United supporters at the arrival of Joe Kinnear on Tyneside?

Hugh Robertson: One of the things for which I am eternally grateful is that my job’s remit does not extend to the appointment of managers or sorting out the weekly round of scraps on a Saturday afternoon. I think I will leave that to the hon. Gentleman, if that is all right.

Andrew Rosindell: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on at long last ensuring that all 21 flags of the British overseas territories and Crown dependencies were flown from Parliament square last week for the Trooping of the Colour? However, will she explain to the House why, for the state opening of Parliament, there were 21 empty flagpoles with no Union flags flying for the arrival of Her Majesty the Queen?

Maria Miller: This is something of great importance, and we will look into it and write to my hon. Friend with an answer.

Paul Farrelly: A full three months ago, this House debated a royal charter on the independent self-regulation of the press. It was supposed to go to the Privy Council. It did not. Meanwhile, certain recalcitrant elements of the press put their own royal charter in. Can the Secretary of State please explain to the nation what on earth is going on, and when she expects the Privy Council to consider the royal charter that was debated democratically in this House?

Maria Miller: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are working to take forward Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations in light of the cross-party agreements. A process is very much under way to consider the “PressBoF” charter, while making sure that the Government’s charter will be subject to full consideration at the appropriate time.

WOMEN AND EQUALITIES

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

Sport (Girls)

Simon Hughes: What steps she is taking to maintain existing levels of girls’ participation in sport.

Hugh Robertson: In a guest appearance—figures released last week show that 6.785 million women played sport once a week, an increase of more than half a million since we won the bid in 2005. Through Sport England, the Government have awarded £1.7 million to the Women’s Sport and Fitness Foundation to help sports understand which groups of women are most likely to take up sport, and where sport should focus effort to best advantage. Women’s participation in sport is one of the key priorities of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities.

Simon Hughes: Having visited the very good girls’ secondary schools and mixed secondary schools in my constituency, it seems that the crucial time to encourage young women to continue with sport and physical activity is the year leading up to 16, when they might leave school or think of other things. What are the Government doing to make sure that at that stage, they are sold the benefits of staying fit?

Hugh Robertson: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct: the single biggest issue affecting gender-based participation in British sport in the last 20 years has been the post-school drop-out, which is most severe amongst teenage girls. The Government have sought to address that in the recent round of whole sport plans by concentrating on those in the 14 to 25 age group; by setting up 500 new satellite clubs, which will help to transition girls out of school and into sports clubs; and through the Sport England College Sport Makers, specialists in further education colleges who will help specifically with that drop-off.

Luciana Berger: A total of 36% of the medals won by Team GB were won by women, but women’s sport gets just 0.5% of sports sponsorship. What action is the Minister taking to ensure that this unacceptable situation is adequately tackled?

Hugh Robertson: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to draw attention to the success of the many women who competed for Team GB last year. We tried to put in place a new sports marketing bureau, headed by Sir Keith Mills, responsible for drawing up the sponsorship for London 2012, but I am afraid that the sports en masse did not want to sign up to that and wished to continue to negotiate sponsorship agreements on their own. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport hosted the summit, bringing together people from the worlds of broadcasting and sport, and we are doing everything we can to address the crucial issue the hon. Lady raises.

Caroline Dinenage: A total of 81% of women feel that female sportspeople are much better role models than celebrities. What is my right hon. Friend doing to ensure that female sport is broadcast more widely so that those role models can get the exposure they deserve?

Hugh Robertson: Perhaps I should turn up more regularly to this section of questions; I am being asked more questions than I was during the sports section. My hon. Friend is absolutely right and a key part of the Secretary of State’s initiative was high-quality advice from female broadcasters about how better to package female sport to make it more attractive. I am delighted to say that I have noticed since 2012 that there is much more concentration on it. It is a key part of UK Sport’s plans for the Rio Olympic and Paralympic cycle and we will do everything we can to ensure that those fantastic role models are appropriately profiled.

David Winnick: While the Leveson inquiry was perfectly justified in view of the scandalous behaviour of some of the press, is the Secretary of State aware that there is a good deal of concern not from the usual quarters but from the regional press, who were not involved in the scandals, from the New Statesman—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am always loth to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but at this stage we are talking about girls’ participation in sport.

David Winnick: I thought it was open questions.

Mr Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will find a way of getting his thoughts across on the matter in the course of the day.

Female Entrepreneurs

Catherine McKinnell: What steps she is taking to increase the number of female entrepreneurs.

Jo Swinson: We commissioned the Women’s Business Council to investigate how we can maximise women’s contribution to economic growth as they have a vital role to play. In response to the council’s recent excellent report, the Government will publish an action plan this autumn. It will highlight how we will improve web-based support for entrepreneurs and work with the British Bankers Association to improve women’s awareness of the financial support available to women entrepreneurs.

Catherine McKinnell: I thank the Minister for that answer. The Prince’s Trust is doing sterling work to support young entrepreneurs in the north-east, such as Emma Reilly in my constituency who set up a web-based design business with its support. It is worrying, however, that the Government’s new enterprise allowance is reaching only 30% of women. What are the Government going to do to ensure that that help reaches women to help more female entrepreneurs come into the market?

Jo Swinson: First, the hon. Lady is right to highlight the excellent work done by the Prince’s Trust and I am delighted that it has been helping entrepreneurs in her constituency. It is important that we ensure that the schemes available to support growing businesses are available to women as well as men and are marketed in a way that attracts women as well as men to apply for them. There are some positive points, such as the start-up loans fund of more than £24 million that has already been approved. More than 40% has already gone to women, but the Government recognise that this is an issue where we can and will do more. We are considering that in our response to the Women’s Business Council report.

Mike Freer: Next week I am taking a group of A-level maths students to visit British Airways Engineering, including a large number of female mathematicians. What is the Minister doing to broaden girls’ aspirations and career choices?

Jo Swinson: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It is important that women and girls are encouraged to take subjects that can lead them into a lot of different careers, whether in entrepreneurship or through science, technology, engineering and maths. We are working with the bodies in the engineering and science industries to make those paths more attractive to women and to encourage them to consider them as positive career options. We are also working further with the Department for Education to follow up on the recommendations of the Women’s Business Council, particularly on careers guidance.

Senior Business Positions (Women)

Ian Swales: What steps she is taking to increase the number of women in senior positions in business.

Maria Miller: We support Lord Davies’s business-led approach to increasing the number of women on boards and our “Think, Act, Report” initiative encourages companies to report on gender equality in the workplace, promoting greater transparency. We have welcomed the recommendations of the Women’s Business Council in supporting women in achieving their potential in the workplace.

Ian Swales: I thank Minister for that answer. Jane Atkinson, a senior engineer at Sembcorp in my constituency, does everything she can to act as a role model and encourage girls to take up technical careers. Will the Minister ensure that more role models are identified to show that manufacturing and industry are good careers for girls?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that, whether through mentoring or sponsoring, this is an important way of getting more women up the career ladder and into senior positions. However, we also need to make sure that they are considering non-typical choices in careers, and engineering is an important part of it. May I suggest that he looks at the Conservative
	Women’s Forum report that was published yesterday, which picks up on many of these issues and offers some practical ways of improving the current situation?

Graeme Morrice: During the financial statement the Chancellor said that his Budget “confronts” our problems “head on”. However, a Treasury team of five men and no women produced a Budget that did not mention women in business once. With such poor gender diversity at the heart of Government, are we missing an opportunity to support female entrepreneurship and women in senior positions in business?

Maria Miller: I have to gently disagree with the hon. Gentleman. He will see that at the heart of what the Government are doing is ensuring that every person in this country can achieve their potential. The changes in the tax regime will support women, as will the increases in access to child care that we have already put in place. Actions very much speak loudly on this subject.

Violence Against Women

Kerry McCarthy: What assessment she has made of the cumulative effect of Government policies on tackling violence against women.

Jeremy Browne: The Government are fully committed to tackling violence against women and girls. We have ring-fenced nearly £40 million of funding up to 2015 for domestic and sexual abuse victims’ services. We monitor the impact of our activity through our annually published action plans, inter-ministerial meetings and regular engagement with the women’s sector.

Kerry McCarthy: But the End Violence Against Women Coalition’s recent “Deeds or Words?” report gave the Government a score of 2.5 out of 10 and the Department for Education a woeful zero—nul points—out of 10 for their efforts to tackle violence against women and girls. Have the Government made any assessment of why they got such a woeful score? What are they going to do to improve their score in future years?

Jeremy Browne: I am grateful for the opportunity to put the Government’s side of the argument, because we have a strong story to tell. We have introduced stronger laws on stalking; we are in the process of criminalising forced marriage, in legislation that I am leading at the moment; we have the highest conviction rates for rape since recording began; and the Home Office is running a very successful campaign—“This is abuse”—aimed at addressing teenage sexual behaviour. The Government have a strong record and I hope that we can persuade more people of that when they write reports in the future.

Rehman Chishti: What specific steps are the Government taking to deal with the disgraceful acts of “honour-based” violence offences?

Jeremy Browne: My hon. Friend is right to draw the House’s attention to this appalling practice. I know that he uses that term because it is the one that is widely used
	to describe this, but I am always a bit guarded about using it because there is nothing at all honourable about treating women in that way. I am sure that that message will go out from every Member of this House, and I hope it will be heard increasingly right across the country.

Sandra Osborne: Only 6.5% of domestic violence incidents recorded by the police actually result in conviction. What kind of message does it send if an alleged perpetrator can receive a caution despite extensive corroborative evidence? Is that the norm? If it is, no wonder conviction rates are so low. Or is it a question of there being one law for the rich and famous and another for everybody else?

Jeremy Browne: There certainly is not one law for the rich and famous and another for everybody else, and if anybody is under the impression that there is, they are labouring under a misapprehension. I share the hon. Lady’s concern about domestic violence conviction rates, and we want to see them increase. Sometimes it is difficult to get a conviction in those circumstances, for reasons that will be obvious to everybody in the House. Domestic violence is an extremely serious crime, and although we have seen overall crime rates fall, we have not seen a marked fall in domestic violence rates. However, that is something we actually quite welcome because it may suggest a higher level of reporting of domestic violence than previously existed.

Yvette Cooper: Women’s safety is being put at risk by Government reforms. According to Homeless Link, Ministers still have not sorted payments to refuges under universal credit, and it is now clear that sanctuary schemes are being put at risk. A woman who is a victim of domestic violence who has a specially installed panic room in her home has been told that she must pay an extra £12 because it counts as a spare bedroom under the bedroom tax. Another woman who is at serious risk from her abuser was moved by a multi-agency risk assessment conference into safe accommodation, but has now been told that she is under-occupying and will have to pay bedroom tax or move home again, when she is already feeling unsafe. It is no good the Minister passing the buck to local councils and chattering on about the discretionary housing payment, as his hon. Friends and colleagues have been trying to advise him. The fact is that such cases are happening across the country. Does he have any idea how many women are being affected in this way? Have Ministers even asked?

Jeremy Browne: I caution the right hon. Lady about scaremongering in that way and trying to use this extremely serious and harrowing issue to make a wider political point about the size of the welfare state, which after all is a part of Government policy on which Labour is in full retreat and is increasingly willing to accept Government policy. There are discretionary payments available to councils in the circumstances that she describes and I urge councils to make those payments available in the right circumstances.

Disabled People

Barbara Keeley: What progress she has made on ensuring equality for disabled people.

Esther McVey: Our disability strategy, Fulfilling Potential, has been developed with disabled people. Through that we are removing the barriers that prevent disabled people from taking a full part in society. Recent indicators show that disabled people are seeing improvements in key outcomes and reduced inequalities between them and non-disabled people. We will drive that progress further when we publish a full detailed plan next month.

Barbara Keeley: The Government have refused to do cumulative impact assessments on their welfare changes, but these were done recently by Demos and Scope for the report, “Destination Unknown”. They found that thousands of disabled people will be hit by four, five or six different cuts to their welfare benefits simultaneously. Does the Minister think the Government have their priorities right when disabled people will be hit by a loss of £28.3 billion of support, while millionaires are enjoying a tax cut?

Esther McVey: The hon. Lady raises this point time and again and I have answered it. We do equality assessments on every policy change. A key reform that we have brought in for public sector duty is to ensure that equality is embedded from concept to development to delivery, right the way through. Cumulative impact assessments are not taking place because we have taken advice that they could not give a proper measurement as these changes in policy are being introduced gradually and those would therefore be inaccurate assessments. But we are doing independent assessment throughout to ensure that we are getting these policy changes right.

Kate Green: We already know that Government reforms are pushing tens of thousands more disabled people into poverty and 440,000 households which include a disabled person are being hit by the bedroom tax. Today’s figures from the Employment Related Services Association show that 94% of the largest group of employment and support allowance recipients joining the Work programme have not even been offered a job. Even the providers say that the Work programme cannot meet all the costs of getting a disabled person back to work, yet the Work programme is costing us billions, so can the Minister explain why it is not working for disabled people?

Esther McVey: I would like to correct the hon. Lady. These things are working. For the first time ever, we have looked to support disabled people and have them fulfilling their potential. I am sure the hon. Lady will be delighted to hear that for the first time ever we are putting in place an employment strategy for disabled people, bringing together businesses and disabled people to look at how they can fulfil their potential. So far from what the hon. Lady is saying, it would be better if she looked at the figures and got it right.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

Andrew Lansley: The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 24 June—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, followed by debate on careers advice in schools for 12-16-year-olds. The subject for this debate was nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Tuesday 25 June—Opposition Day [4th allotted day]. There will be a debate on lobbying, followed by a debate on the armed forces. Both debates will arise on a motion in the name of the official Opposition.
	Wednesday 26 June—I would like to remind the House that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a statement on the spending review, followed by Second Reading of the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill, followed by motions relating to the hybrid Bill procedure.
	Thursday 27 June—A general debate on legal aid reform, followed by a general debate on multi-national companies and UK corporation tax. The subjects for these debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 1 July will include:
	Monday 1 July—Remaining stages of the Finance (No. 2) Bill (Day 1).
	Tuesday 2 July—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Finance (No. 2) Bill (Day 2).
	Wednesday 3 July— Estimates Day [1st allotted day]. There will be a debate on public expenditure and health care services, followed by a debate on Rail 2020. Further details will be given in the Official Report.
	The details are as follows: Debate on public expenditure and health care services. Debate on Rail 2020.
	At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates, followed by a motion to approve a European document relating to reforming Europol.
	Thursday 4 July—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill, followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 5 July—Private Members’ Bills.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 27 June will be:
	Thursday 27 June—A debate on the First Report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, “An air transport strategy for Northern Ireland”.

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business.
	We are witnessing a continuing deterioration of the situation in Syria: the latest estimates are that 93,000 people have been killed, and there is a rapidly escalating humanitarian crisis on the border as millions flee. Will the Leader of the House undertake to keep the House informed of the Government’s intentions? Can he tell
	us now how he intends to ensure that the voice of this House is heard ahead of any change in Government policy?
	I note that the High Speed 2 preparation Bill will be before the House next Wednesday, but there is still no sign of the Second Reading of the hybrid Bill, which is also necessary if HS2 is to proceed. The Government promised that that Bill would have Royal Assent by the end of this Parliament, but we all know that hybrid Bills take a very long time to get through Parliament. Is the Leader of the House convinced that there is enough time left for the Government to fulfil their promise? Can he guarantee that Second Reading of the hybrid Bill will take place in this Session?
	Under this Government, top bankers have had a double bonanza, as figures from the Office for National Statistics show a 64% increase in bonuses, timed to coincide with the Government’s huge tax cut for millionaires. Is that because, as the figures show, half of all Tory party funding comes from the City?
	Last night, the Chancellor made his speech at the Mansion House in the aftermath of the final report of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, but he has had nothing to say to this House. When can we expect a statement on that from the Government? Perhaps the Chancellor is too embarrassed to turn up, as we learned that President Obama called him “Jeffrey” three times at the G8. There are plenty of names I could think of to call this Chancellor, but “Jeffrey” is not one of them.
	Yesterday, the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) presented his Bill on an EU referendum to the House. I am afraid that the Bill is turning into a bit of a farce: last week, even the Leader of the House could not keep a straight face when trying to argue that the hon. Gentleman was running his own Bill, and this week the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary had to be advised that they could not sign a private Member’s Bill without it turning into a Government Bill. Has no one told the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary that if they really want to sponsor a private Member’s Bill, they can easily do so—from the Back Benches?
	May I take this opportunity to congratulate all those who featured in the Queen’s birthday honours earlier this week? Of course, the Leader of the House is a previous recipient, so he knows all about the thrill of being recognised by Her Majesty, but does he agree that the Government’s strategy of giving people gongs to keep them quiet is adding to the Queen’s work load with little obvious effect? On the day after his knighthood was announced, the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) showed his gratitude on the Conservative Home website by describing his own Government’s legislative programme as
	“the weakest…in recent memory”
	Does the Leader of the House agree with him?
	The recent birthday honours also brought good news for the right hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell), who was knighted, and the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), who joined the Order of the Companions of Honour. I congratulate them both. Some 14% of Liberal Democrat Members have now been knighted, which means that there are more knights on the Liberal Democrat Benches than there are women. Does the Leader of the
	House agree that at least in this important respect the Liberal Democrats are punching well above their weight in this Government? Any more of this and the Liberal Democrat Whips Office will be scouring eBay for a round table.
	With all the disunity in the Government, it is reassuring to see that the Leader of the House and his deputy are working together, shoulder to shoulder, as a great team—at least, that is what I thought until the leaflet I am holding came to my attention. It was delivered this weekend through a door in the constituency of the Deputy Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). In it, he campaigns passionately to save a hospital that his own Government are closing. He says:
	“I am calling upon the Secretary of State for Health Andrew Lansley to meet urgently with me and local councillors to discuss the fate of our hospital.”
	That tells us he does not seem to know what job his boss does, he apparently cannot get a meeting with him, and he does not seem able to defend his own Government’s actions to his constituents. Mr Speaker, I feel a knighthood coming on.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her response to the business statement and to the Opposition, in particular, for equipping me to announce the business for the Supply day next Tuesday. I join her in paying tribute to all those recognised in the birthday honours list. I congratulate, on behalf of the House, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) on their awards. I would also like to congratulate Elizabeth Gardiner, from parliamentary counsel, and Roland Hunt, head of parliamentary support in the Opposition Whips Office, and I think that the House will be particular pleased to learn that Robin Fell, Principal Doorkeeper of the House, was made an Officer of the Order of the British Empire.
	Honours are of course very appropriate for our Liberal Democrat colleagues in the coalition, and much deserved, so we are delighted to have seen them. I am nervous about the reference the shadow Leader of the House made to the benefit of the Liberal Democrat knights sitting at a round table. In this morning’s newspapers it was noted how good a round table is in enabling consensus to emerge in office meetings. The trouble is that the only round table I know that could accommodate all the Liberal Democrat knights is the one in my office, so do not tell the Deputy Prime Minister or there might be a furniture raid.
	The shadow Leader of the House talked about the literature in south-west London—[Interruption.] Yes, it was this week. As she will be aware, and as the Deputy Leader of the House has advised me, that is a manifestation of the Liberal Democrats’ green policies; they do not waste paper. One should not waste a good leaflet.
	On Syria, the shadow Leader of the House will have heard what the Prime Minister said yesterday, and the Foreign Secretary and other Foreign Office Ministers have kept the House fully informed. I think that I have been clear about this at business questions before, but for the avoidance of any doubt I will say it again: no decision has been made within Government for us to
	arm the Syrian National Coalition. Were any such decision to be made we would not implement it unless and until it secured the support of this House on a substantive motion. I believe that that meets the concern of colleagues. In addition, the Prime Minister yesterday accurately reflected on the simple fact that where national security interests are engaged it must be correct that the Government reserve the right to take any necessary action in defence of our security. I emphasise, however, that this in no sense qualifies the commitment I have given to the House on the question of arms and Syria.
	The shadow Leader of the House asked about HS2. Her points will be addressed in the debate on the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill, which will no doubt give an opportunity to look toward the introduction of the HS2 hybrid Bill. The pace at which the hybrid Bill will be able to progress will be debated next Wednesday in a number of motions relating to its procedure. It might benefit the House to know that the motions have now been tabled and are available, along with an explanatory memorandum, from the Vote Office.
	The hon. Lady asked about banking, in particular the banking Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was clear at the Mansion House last night that the Government welcome the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. Indeed, I think we can all say now that it demonstrates what a good decision it was to proceed with a parliamentary commission. If we had gone down the line of a public inquiry, I suspect that evidence would still be being taken rather than measures being implemented. The Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill is before the House and the Chancellor has made it clear that, where measures require legislation, we will seek to introduce them during the consideration of the Bill. I have not yet had the opportunity to announce the remaining stages of that Bill in this House.
	I have seen press reports about the Chancellor being referred to as Jeffrey. I heard this morning that there was a bit of a debate about who was cool at the G8 summit. Jeffrey Osborne would have been cool—that is for sure. From the Chancellor’s point of view, it is probably just as well that the President of the United States did not refer to him as Ozzy, which would have been worse.

Dennis Skinner: It’s better than Gideon, though, isn’t it?

Andrew Lansley: I will just settle for George, if that is all right.
	On the European Union (Referendum) Bill, I have announced that private Members’ Bills will be considered on Friday 5 July and I know that my colleagues are all looking forward to supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton).
	I do not think that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) asked any further questions, but I want to say one more thing. She and her colleagues have scheduled a debate on lobbying next week and I want to emphasise that the Government are committed to enhancing the transparency of political life. This Government are the most transparent ever, proactively publishing details of ministerial meetings, Government procurement and other items of public interest. I am looking forward to next Tuesday’s debate, because it will be an opportunity to make very clear that we are proceeding with the coalition programme, as we always said we would, whereas the
	Labour party, over 13 years, never took a step. In fact, it put the issue in the “too hot to handle” basket. We as a Government are making it clear that we are going to do it and have said so time and again. It is curious that an Opposition motion is asking for a Bill to be introduced when we have said that we will introduce such a Bill before the summer recess.

Tony Baldry: May we have a debate on the protocols that should apply to the information given to Members of Parliament if failings are found in NHS or care home facilities in their constituencies? It is not just the Care Quality Commission but other organisations, such as Monitor and, indeed, the royal colleges that investigate concerns about safety in the NHS. The Royal College of Surgeons recently undertook an inquiry into surgery at Horton general hospital in my constituency. The report exists and is being talked about, but it has not been published. In such circumstances, there should be, post-Francis, a clear understanding of what information is provided to MPs if failings are found in the NHS or social care in their own constituencies.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will know that, under this coalition Government, there has never been as much clarity in terms of the standards that the NHS is setting out to meet. They are expressed in the NHS clinical standards and the measurement of outcomes. As my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary said yesterday, rightly, that emphasis on the publication of data in order to inform patients and the public and to hold everybody in the NHS better to account is critical.
	My hon. Friend asks what Members of Parliament should do. I hope that in any case all Members of Parliament would, in the first instance, be alongside the providers of health care in their constituencies, because the first responsibility for delivering standards lies with the management of the health care providers. Alongside that, the new clinical commissioning groups and NHS England have a responsibility. I think that Members of Parliament will find it extremely helpful to have a continuing dialogue with their clinical commissioning groups, which have a responsibility for delivering high-quality care to the patients for whom they commission services. They are supported by NHS England, where we have mainstreamed the patient safety responsibilities of the former National Patient Safety Agency.
	When those measures fail to deliver satisfactory responses in the view of a Member of Parliament, the Member can and should go to the Care Quality Commission. The CQC would then have a responsibility to investigate and secure action to ensure that essential standards are met and that those who are responsible for failures are held to account.

Natascha Engel: The Leader of the House has announced that the statement on the comprehensive spending review will be on Wednesday. I understand that it is his intention not to schedule a debate on the comprehensive spending review, but to point anybody who wants such a debate in the direction of the Backbench Business Committee. Before he reaches for the Wright Committee report and reads the small section about the comprehensive spending
	review being under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee, I should point out that I think all Members would agree with me when I say that if the comprehensive spending review is not Government business, I do not know what is. The Backbench Business Committee would be delighted to schedule the Government’s business, but if that is his intention will he at least allocate an extra day to the Committee so that we may have such a debate? If not, will he schedule it in Government time?

Andrew Lansley: I am sure that the hon. Lady recognises that many of the subjects that the Wright Committee said the Backbench Business Committee should determine the priority of and allocate time to are the responsibility of Government. Paragraph 139 of the Wright Committee report made it perfectly clear that debates on the spending review are precisely the sort of debates that it should be up to the House to decide whether to schedule. As it happens, in the provisional business that I have announced for the week beginning 1 July, the House will debate the Finance Bill and there will be an estimates day, which will include debates relating to the departmental estimates for Health and Transport.

Penny Mordaunt: Estate agents in Portsmouth are required to display energy efficiency information on property advertisements. Not only did the Cabinet Office give them little time to do that, but it does not give those details on advertisements for Government property that is for sale or to let and it seems confused about whether a sales listing is an offer to sell or lease. That chaos and confusion rather undermines the unhelpful answer that I received from the Department for Communities and Local Government, which states that “advertisement” is
	“an ordinary English word which does not require further clarification.”—[Official Report, 4 March 2013; Vol. 563, c. 779W.]
	Will the Leader of the House find time to consider those matters given that, since December, the performance of neither Department has been energetic or efficient?

Andrew Lansley: I will, of course, take up the points that my hon. Friend raises with the Cabinet Office and the Department for Communities and Local Government. The Government are engaged in an ambitious programme of selling surplus public sector land and assets, not least in order to secure the building of 10,000 homes on that land. When we are selling properties, we must try to set an example by securing energy efficiency in those properties and advertising that fact.

John Cryer: If the Government are struggling to produce a lobbying Bill, which they clearly are, they can have my Bill. It was produced two years ago and could be printed before the debate next Tuesday. It would certainly be far superior to any drivel that the Deputy Prime Minister might come up with.

Andrew Lansley: The Government are not struggling to produce a Bill; we have set out the timetable and will introduce a Bill before the summer recess. The clauses for a Bill were published previously and were the subject of a consultation last year. In that context, it is a bit rich of the Labour party to talk about wanting cross-party talks on the issue, when no Labour MP, including those
	on the Opposition Front Bench, supplied any response to the Government consultation on the clauses that we published.

Tessa Munt: Some 99% of all UK limited companies have beneficial owners who are exactly the same as the legal shareholders disclosed on the Companies House website, and many people—including the Prime Minister and Will Morris, the head of tax at CBI—have expressed their preference for putting company beneficial ownership into the public domain, because the “many eyes” principle keeps data honest. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on the impact of an open, public register of company beneficial share ownership on UK businesses, and agree that that would not be onerous?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. She will recall that in response to questions following his statement on the Lough Erne declaration yesterday, the Prime Minister made clear his wish to see that register of beneficial ownership completed, published and made publicly available, not only in this country but in a number of countries. That multilateral, international approach extends not only to the G8 but beyond to developing countries, and, as the Prime Minister said, it was recognised as important by a number of Heads of Government of African nations who attended the lunch on Tuesday. Such an approach can make a big difference to rooting out corruption and promoting economic development in developing countries.

Jim Fitzpatrick: In March, the Government made the welcome announcement that they intend to publish a Green Paper on graduated licensing for young drivers, to address the dreadful toll of young people being killed or seriously injured on our roads. Will the Leader of the House advise whether we are likely to see that Green Paper before the summer recess, and, if not, when we might expect a statement?

Andrew Lansley: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a date. Transport questions are next Thursday—I will perhaps alert my hon. Friends in that Department, although they will know of his interest. Forgive me if I am wrong, but my recollection is that the private Members’ Bills published yesterday included one by an hon. Member—the name, I fear, escapes me—who was introducing a Bill to deal precisely with the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Lee Scott: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should have a debate on the amount of medical negligence payments being made by the NHS, particularly following the tragic cases in Barking, Havering and Redbridge Trust, which serves my Ilford North constituency?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend raises a point that many Members will recognise as important. We want to minimise cases of clinical negligence that give rise to compensation, and that is the first priority. I said earlier that patient safety being mainstreamed in NHS England is terrifically important, but unfortunately the volume of payments through the NHS Litigation Authority is now roughly £1 billion a year, and there is a massive contingent liability. We cannot expect that to disappear and it is important to have compensation where people have
	suffered harm as a consequence of accessing NHS treatment, but we must ensure that that is done cost-effectively. I know all Members—including Government Members—feel strongly that we have arrived at a position where negligence payments to expert witnesses and lawyers are sometimes as great as the compensation paid to families, and we want to bear down on that very hard.

Diana Johnson: In the light of comments reported this morning that the Deputy Prime Minister described the Nigella Lawson incident of domestic violence as “fleeting”, even though we know the perpetrator has accepted a caution for assault, may we please have a debate on how seriously the Government take the issue of domestic violence?

Andrew Lansley: I am sure that the hon. Lady will have heard the Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), responding to questions earlier. The Government are committed to doing everything we can to prevent domestic violence and provide support to victims, which is why the Home Office produced the violence against women and girls action plan, including a ring-fenced budget of nearly £40 million. Also, multi-agency risk assessment centres are operating in more than 250 areas across the country. It is serious, we take it seriously and we are acting in a substantial way.

Robert Halfon: Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 282 on the extension of free school meals to young people attending further education colleges?
	[That this House notes that young people attending further education colleges do not receive free school meals despite being eligible for them; further notes that the Association of Colleges has found that 79 per cent of colleges believe that free school meals for 16 to 18 years olds would encourage them to stay on in education; further notes that young people who attend sixth form and are eligible for free school meals do receive them; and therefore urges the Government to look at what can be done to treat sixth formers and college students equally and support these young people to continue in education.]
	Harlow college in my constituency estimates that 350 young people are in severe need of free school meals, and not receiving them puts their education at risk, yet children who go to sixth-form schools get free school meals. Will my right hon. Friend lobby the Chancellor to include it in the spending round next week?

Andrew Lansley: I understand my hon. Friend’s point, not least because FE colleges in my constituency and adjoining it have raised exactly that point with me too. It is, of course, a matter of available resources, but even before the spending review, if he were to catch your eye, Mr Speaker, he might have an opportunity to raise the matter with Education Ministers at Question Time on Monday.

Barry Sheerman: The Leader of the House will agree that the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards has produced rather a good report, but it leads us to conclude that there is
	unfinished business over what went wrong with our banking sector. May we have an early debate on the really sad state of the accountancy profession and the auditing process in this country? It is high time we got to the heart of the matter.

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman is right about the commission: it has produced an important and welcome report. He might like to raise these issues at Treasury questions on Tuesday, if he has an opportunity, but notwithstanding that, as I said, I have not yet been able to announce the timing for consideration of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill, which touches on these issues. I would add—this touches on accountancy and other professions related to financial services—that the commission has established, and the Government agree absolutely, that there is no competition between high standards in financial services and global competitiveness. The appalling events of 2008 and their aftermath, including their impact worldwide, demonstrate that global competitiveness, including the trust, credibility and competitiveness of major financial centres, depends on setting and maintaining high banking and financial services standards.

Andrew Jones: Housing is one of the issues most frequently raised at my surgeries, whether it be access to social housing or simply getting on the property ladder. It has been estimated that in the UK there are 920,000 empty homes, of which 330,000 are long-term empty. Please may we have a debate to explore what can be done between local and national Government to bring these homes back into use and so provide more homes and reduce the pressure to build on our green fields?

Andrew Lansley: I think that many Members will recognise the issue that my hon. Friend describes in his constituency. He will recall the changes in council tax treatment relating to empty homes, which, difficult as it might be in some cases, creates an additional substantial disincentive to leave homes empty, which is important. We want them occupied. In addition, the Government are on track to deliver 170,000 more affordable homes by March 2015. It is an investment programme of nearly £20 billion. Furthermore, of course, by supporting the wider house building programme, not least with schemes like Help to Buy, we are beginning to see the steps needed to get the people who need housing into good-quality new housing.

Keith Vaz: Yesterday King Abdullah of Jordan told Members at a meeting that Jordan was ready to accept Abu Qatada back. As the Leader of the House knows, the total cost to the taxpayer of Abu Qatada’s legal fees is now £1.7 million. Tomorrow the House will automatically ratify the treaty with Jordan, which Jordan has already ratified. May we have a statement from the Home Secretary on the likely timetable for the return of Abu Qatada to Jordan?

Andrew Lansley: The right hon. Gentleman understands these matters well and knows that the ratification in Jordan is a positive step forward. As he said, the House will ratify the treaty, but that does not preclude opportunities
	for appeal on behalf of Mr Qatada. I cannot offer a statement at the moment, but the Home Secretary has kept the House fully informed and I am sure she will continue to do so.

Glyn Davies: Diolch. Sianel Pedwar Cymru, or S4C, is hugely important to the cultural life of Wales and underpins the success of the Welsh language. Broadcasting is not a devolved matter; it is the responsibility of this House. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that we have a debate at an early opportunity on the value of S4C and its contribution to the future of the Welsh language?

Andrew Lansley: I am familiar with some programmes. Pobol y Cwm is my favourite programme on S4C, because it is filmed in Menai Bridge, which I know well. My hon. Friend is right about the importance of S4C and it is good for the House to have opportunities from time to time to examine and reiterate that, but the best thing would probably be for him to secure the support of other Members from Wales and make an approach to the Backbench Business Committee.

Pete Wishart: The Leader of the House will know that a review of the Wright reforms is currently going through parliamentary Committees. The reforms have been an utter disaster for the smaller parties, leaving the proceedings of the House almost exclusively in the hands of the Government and the Labour Opposition. Will he support having a place for a Member from the minority parties on the Backbench Business Committee and on the proposed House business committee?

Andrew Lansley: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels that way. The intention of the Government, and I think of the major parties in this House, has been to ensure that there is access for smaller parties. In particular, arrangements have been made for smaller parties to attend the Backbench Business Committee, even if they are not able to vote. I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that I went recently to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which is undertaking an inquiry into the Wright Committee reforms. I made it clear that at this stage I have no proposals to introduce a House business committee, but I await the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s report. If the hon. Gentleman has any points to raise, he should be making them to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee.

Julian Sturdy: May we have a debate on the protection of our green belt, and in particular on the important role it plays in protecting the character and setting of our historic cities, such as York in my constituency where more than 2,000 acres of green-belt land is under threat from the council’s draft local plan?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I know he will have sympathy with other colleagues who have historic cities in a countryside setting in their constituency. That was precisely the description applied to Cambridge when its structure plan was agreed some 10 years ago. The essence of the Government’s localism policy is to give more opportunities for local communities
	to establish the framework for local planning and development. The Government have given that power to York city council, which is not under the control of our party, and I hope that my hon. Friend is successful in ensuring that it listens to the views of the people he represents.

Stephen McCabe: Following the statement yesterday on the hospital and Care Quality Commission scandal, is it not time that we had a full debate, in Government time, on the purpose, intention and scope of the Data Protection Act 1998, so that Parliament is able to make its position crystal clear and stop lawyers’ organisations and petty officials using the Act to hide information, to protect wrongdoers, and to cover up their own incompetence, as seems to happen all too regularly at present?

Andrew Lansley: I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman a debate at this moment. I heard the Information Commissioner talking about this on the radio this morning. One of the most important things is for there to be clarity in the minds of those in organisations, and those who advise them, on what the 1998 Act requires and what it does not require. As the hon. Gentleman may have heard in the exchanges after the statement yesterday, there are clear exemptions under the Act relating to the public interest.

Stephen Barclay: Further to the concerns I raised on the Public Accounts Committee 18 months ago about whether Care Quality Commission inspectors had the clinical experience to understand the industry they were inspecting, and given that the comments on the radio yesterday by the new chair suggest that that is still the case, may we have a debate on the Care Quality Commission and, in particular, the way in which senior officials have escaped accountability, including some who chaired that body and now sit in the other place?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend has examined the work of the Care Quality Commission carefully and critically through his work on the Public Accounts Committee. What is clear from what we saw yesterday, as well as the report produced by Grant Thornton, is that decisions were made—in fact, under the last Government—relating to the generalist character of inspection and the disbandment of the specialist investigations team, which is one of a number of a things that, on reflection, contributed to a very poor regulatory performance at that time. The CQC has new management, new chief inspectors and a lot of opportunities. I hope we will have an opportunity at some point for a debate that not only looks at the causes of that regulatory failure in the past, but gives an opportunity to the CQC to demonstrate how it can be a changed organisation.

Valerie Vaz: The national planning policy framework states that it is inappropriate to build on the green belt, yet a ministerial statement last September said that local plans would be fast-tracked if they included the green belt. My constituents want to know whether the green belt is safe, so may we have an urgent debate on Government guidance to local decision makers on this conflicting policy?

Andrew Lansley: It is not a conflicting policy at all. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), this comes down to decisions made locally by local people and the local authorities that represent them. If they attach the importance and sense of permanence to the green belt that is required—as I think they should—that is fine. However, if I may revert to my own constituency, the decision from 10 years ago—made locally, before the last Government introduced overriding planning guidance—did in fact give up some green belt, although it was regarded as poor quality green belt that did not contribute to the protection of Cambridge as a city. Houses are being built on what was previously green-belt land, but we feel strongly, as my hon. Friend and others do, about the green belt that contributes clearly and directly to the environmental quality of the cities and towns we live in.

Rehman Chishti: Given that around 20 to 30 Anglican churches are closed for regular worship every year, may we have an urgent debate on how we can work with local dioceses to keep churches open? They include St Barnabas church in my constituency, which has been threatened with closure after being at the heart of the community for more than 120 years.

Andrew Lansley: I am sure the House recognises that my hon. Friend makes an important point for many communities where churches have been so important for so long. If I may, I will direct my hon. Friend to questions to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), representing the Church Commissioners, on Thursday 4 July. His point would be most appropriately responded to then, and he has taken this opportunity to give our hon. Friend notice.

Jonathan Reynolds: May we have a debate about the way in which we decide when and where high-risk defendants are put on trial? Last week Dale Cregan was sentenced to full life imprisonment for the murders of Police Constables Fiona Bone and Nicola Hughes in my constituency. I am sure that Members from all parts of the House will join me in welcoming the news that he will never leave prison as long as he lives. However, the cost of ferrying this man and his co-defendants on a 70-mile round trip up the M6 to Preston every day for four months was more than £5 million, with real risks attached to the public. Greater Manchester police and Police and Crime Commissioner Tony Lloyd asked the Government to reclassify Preston jail as a high-security prison, but this was refused and the alternative option of holding the trial at the Old Bailey was not taken up either. Is there not a better way to minimise both the cost to the public and the police and the risks to the public than transporting very dangerous criminals in that way?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I do not know all the circumstances relating to the case, or the considerations that led to those decisions being made. If I may, I will raise the matter with the Prisons Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), and ask him to respond.

Simon Kirby: Brighton and Hove are awash with uncollected rubbish and litter because of the inability of the Green council and the unions to reach agreement. Tourism, public health and residents are all being put at risk. May we please have a debate on this important issue?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The irony will not be lost on his constituents that, although they have a Green council, the quality of their environment is being undermined by these actions. I know that my hon. Friend is doing everything he can to ensure that the issues are resolved, but it is important that the trade unions do not put the interests of the public at risk through the steps they are taking, and that the council steps up to its responsibilities. If he can bring the two together, I am sure that his constituents will be grateful to him.

Andrew Stephenson: On Sunday, I was delighted to join a Rossendale and Pendle mountain rescue team exercise on Pendle Hill. Local mountain rescue organisations across the UK are an invaluable life-saving emergency service, run entirely by volunteers and funded by charitable donations. May we have a debate on mountain rescue in the UK and on what Members across the House can do to support local groups?

Andrew Lansley: I very much agree with my hon. Friend about the importance and value of the service provided by mountain rescue teams. They are central to the emergency response in their areas and work routinely with the emergency services in exercises. They are also integral to the work of local resilience forums, and it is not least for that reason that the Government provide financial support to the three mountain rescue organisations, including £128,000 to Mountain Rescue England and Wales over the four years to 2014-15. I cannot promise a debate, but it may be appropriate for my hon. Friend and other colleagues with a constituency interest in the matter to approach the Backbench Business Committee. None the less, I am sure that the mountain rescue organisations will be grateful for his and other Members’ interest and support.

Julian Smith: With just over a year to go, may we have a debate to celebrate the fact that Yorkshire councils and the UK Government have finally reached a conclusion on how best to make the Tour de France 2014 the best ever? As a Yorkshire MP, may I thank the Government for the £10 million commitment and £21 million underwrite that they are giving? Will the Leader of the House also confirm that he is dusting off the yellow Lycra outfit in his wardrobe?

Andrew Lansley: I will be happy to be a spectator at the Tour de France, although I confess that that might not be in Yorkshire but in my own constituency when the tour comes through there afterwards. I shall not be cycling myself, but I shall be glad to be there cheering.

Points of Order

Thomas Docherty: On a point of order, Mr Speaker—

Mr Speaker: I hope that this is a genuine point of order and not a means of delay. There is no need to delay. I know that the Front Benchers are not here yet—or at least half of them are not—but that does not matter. We can get on perfectly well without them. However, if the hon. Gentleman wants to raise his point of order and test his vocal chords, I shall not decline him the opportunity.

Thomas Docherty: Further to the point made by the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), about how next week’s statement should be labelled, could you possibly ask the Leader of the House to ensure that there is no loss of the time available to Back Benchers as a result of this oversight by the Government?

Mr Speaker: I am not sure that any detriment is set to be suffered by the House, but I come to this matter slightly unsighted. The brow of the Leader of the House is furrowed, which suggests that he is as perplexed by the hon. Gentleman’s point of order as I am. It might be that there is a point of immense sophistication wrapped up in the enigma of the hon. Gentleman’s point of order, but thus far it has escaped me. We will leave it there for the time being. If there are no further points of order, either genuine or bogus, we can now move on—

Valerie Vaz: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to seek your guidance on a letter that the Leader of the House sent to me last night in relation to an answer that he gave me in the House last week. I would like to bring it to the attention of the House, and perhaps I could have your guidance on this. I forwarded a copy of the letter to you this morning. It was about a response to a question on legal aid.

Mr Speaker: I am bound to say that that does not sound like a point of order. [Interruption.] The Leader of the House will probably know the contents of the letter of which I have not yet had sight. It may have been sent to me, but I have not yet seen it.

Andrew Lansley: Further to that point of order, I am grateful for the opportunity to offer a clarification. As the hon. Lady knows, at last week’s business questions, she asked me whether Justice Ministers had met the Criminal Bar Association. I recalled the occasion; I was sitting on the Bench with Justice Ministers on 21 May and I heard them respond to questions, listing the stakeholders that they met. I confess that I mistakenly thought that the Criminal Bar Association was in that long list of stakeholders, but it was not. That was on 21 May, as I say, but my noble Friend Lord McNally met the Criminal Bar Association on 30 May.

Mr Speaker: Well, whether that answer spawns general contentment I do not know, but it does seem to me to deal with the matter for the time being. I will of course cast my eye over the letter from the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) as soon as I have the opportunity, but I do not think it need detain us from moving on to debate the important issue of provision for carers, which is the first of this afternoon’s debates selected by the Backbench Business Committee.

Backbench Business
	 — 
	Carers

Paul Burstow: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of carers.
	I start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for choosing this as the first debate of this parliamentary Session since the re-establishment of that Committee. I very much appreciate the fact that within the space of a few days after the celebration of national carers week, the Backbench Business Committee was able to grant us this time to examine how better to support carers in this country and to recognise the extraordinary contribution that each and every carer makes to their families and our society. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) and the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) for their support for this application and for the contributions that I look forward to hearing from them later in the debate.
	As I said, last week was national carers week. With over 10,000 events up and down the country—I am sure that many hon. Members will have had the opportunity to participate in them in their constituency—this was the biggest carers week so far. Here in Westminster, MPs were invited to a variety of events, including a speed dating event with carers with a wide range of life experiences. I had the opportunity to meet, among others, a woman called Karen whose husband has Parkinson’s. She told me about her experience of being a carer for someone with that particular condition and about the isolation she felt, having taken on that caring role. She conveyed a sense of being increasingly excluded from participating in many aspects of society. I met other carers involved with Marie Curie, who told me how, because of the nature of the diagnosis and the rapid progression of the cancers in question, they experienced additional strains and burdens in trying to get the right support at the right time for their loved ones. The week concluded with a lively carers question time event, in which the Minister and a range of experts participated.
	This year’s theme was “Prepared to Care?” It highlighted the fact that people who take on caring roles are often not prepared for the physical and emotional impact of caring, nor for its impact on their lives in other ways, not least financially. In that sense, it is worth stressing that this is not a “them and us” issue. It is easy to think about this as something that is going to happen to other people, whereas the figures clearly show that three out of five of us will be a carer at some point in our lives. It will touch all of us, either through personal experience or through our family’s experiences.
	I want to pay particular tribute to the carers I have met over the years in my constituency during my time as a Member of Parliament. I want to thank the Sutton Carers Centre for being a lifeline for thousands of carers—young and old alike. The carers centre in Sutton has been my guide and teacher on carer issues over the past 15 years. Whether through shadowing carers to learn directly from them or meeting carers at the centre, I have found that the things they want—the things they tell me they want—are not impossible or unreasonable.
	They do not want to feel that everything is a constant battle—a battle to get a diagnosis, a battle to get an assessment, a battle to get support, a battle to get a break, or, indeed, a battle to navigate around the system.
	Over the years, I have met and listened to many carers in my constituency and I have met carers for whom the lifeline that keeps them sane and keeps them connected is not the formal social care support, nor even the carer centre. It may be, for instance, the local bowling club, as I learned from one of the carers whom I shadowed. The determination of the club’s members to support a friend was the most important thing in that person’s life. Not enough is made of such informal, often fragile networks of support, although they often represent the vital difference between just surviving and having a life.
	There is clear evidence that the caring role takes its toll on people, physically, emotionally and financially. Six out of 10 carers report experiencing depression because of their caring role, and, as I have said, caring can be a lonely business: three out of five carers say that they have experienced difficulties in maintaining relationships with friends. Another problem is the desire of many carers to stay in the workplace so that they can remain connected through their work. More than 3 million are trying to balance their caring responsibilities with paid work, often at the expense of working hours or their career prospects.
	Last June I hosted a carers summit with the forum Employers for Carers, led by BT. The aim was to explore opportunities to help carers to remain in the workplace. BT and other members of the forum, such as British Gas, have a good track record in that regard. They invest in their staff and want to retain them, so identifying and supporting carers seems logical to them. The cost to the bottom line of a business of replacing a member of staff can be huge, and one of the purposes of the summit was to enable more employers to see the business case for carer-friendly employment practices. The Government subsequently established a “task and finish” group to consider ways of creating an environment in which people could balance their caring responsibilities with their careers. That work is vital.
	According to a recent survey conducted by YouGov for Carers UK, an estimated 2.3 million people have given up work at some point to care for an older or disabled loved one. One in four gave up work or reduced their working hours because the cost of replacement care was too high, and a similar number reported that services were not flexible enough to meet their needs. The impact of being forced to give up work to care for a loved one on an individual’s finances alone is clear, but the London School of Economics has estimated that the hidden cost to the economy—in benefits and lost tax revenues—is a staggering £1.3 billion a year, every year. When lost earnings are taken into account, the figure can rise to as much as £5.3 billion. That is not a cost that the United Kingdom can continue to bear as a consequence of a failure to act and provide the safeguards, supports and systems that would enable carers to remain in employment.
	There is an urgent need to us to reframe the debate. We must stop focusing on the burden on the economy, and see caring as an asset and an opportunity. We must begin to view it in the way we view child care support
	and services. Carers must be entitled to more flexibility at work, although the Government have done much in that regard. Given the scale of demographic change—the over-85s are now the fastest-growing section of the population, and their number is set to double by 2030—and the growing proportion of “sandwich workers” who are attempting to juggle paid work with the demands of caring for both children and older relatives, the provision of flexibility is becoming an imperative. The Government must also think about how the market for low-level support services such as cleaning, shopping, gardening and befriending can be increased and, crucially, brought into the formal labour market.

Jim Cunningham: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate, which is timely given some of the things that have been happening in old people’s homes. Does he agree that there is a case for asking employers to help people who have to care for a family member? Such people are often under stress, and if they have to give up their jobs, their standard of living will fall as well.

Paul Burstow: That is a key point, and one that I want to put to the Government very strongly. Carers can only be helped to remain in the work force and balance their working lives with their caring responsibilities if the right substitute care and flexibility are available, and if employers have the right attitudes in the first place.

Kate Green: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Burstow: I will take one more intervention, but I must not take too many more, because I have only 15 minutes in which to speak.

Kate Green: Could not public sector employers be exemplars in this respect? Can the right hon. Gentleman suggest any ways in which such good practice could be spread throughout the public sector?

Paul Burstow: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say public sector employers should be—and could be, and must be—exemplars in this. Indeed, it would be great if the NHS itself was an exemplar in this area, yet as I will come on to say, I think in too many ways institutionally the NHS is rather biased against carers, and certainly blind to their needs in too many cases.
	There is an economic reason why we need to do more in this area. It is estimated that as many as 50% of those involved in personal and household services operate in the grey economy. This represents a further missed opportunity in terms of job creation and lost revenue to the Exchequer. Looking across the channel to France where work began almost a decade ago to address a number of these issues, market development for homecare services has led to the creation of an additional 2 million jobs, with the industry becoming one of the biggest growth sectors in that economy.
	There are clearly lessons to be learnt in how to support and strengthen carers’ ability to care in a way that supports the wider UK economy. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us when the “task and finish group” recommendations will be published.
	Moving on, one of the most practical ways to support carers is to provide them with breaks from caring. That can help reduce the stress and the often constant demands that caring involves, and allow them to have the time to improve their own physical and mental health.
	In recognition of the value of carers breaks, the Government committed in the 2010 spending review to spend £400 million over four years on breaks for carers living in England. As the Minister at the time, I was convinced of the importance of giving carers a break and knew that it would make a huge difference to their lives. I therefore regret that the evidence suggests that that has not happened. Monitoring by the Carers Trust for the year 2011-12 found that action on the ground had often been slow or non-existent. Despite clear reporting requirements, in many areas it was impossible to track how money had been spent, and in a small minority of cases nothing at all had been spent on services for carers. Some fantastic work has been done, but progress has remained appallingly slow. To be fair, this problem has dogged not just the coalition Government, but successive Governments.
	I ask this question: what is the common factor? The common factor is the institution we are using to direct the money, which is the NHS. It does not see carers as significantly important contributors to it, and therefore it does not see this money as worth spending on them. That has to change.

Stephen McCabe: I acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman’s efforts when in government, and I agree that this issue has dogged successive Governments. I wonder whether we have reached the stage where we have to give some clear statutory rights to carers in respect of respite care, because whatever organisation has the budget, it does not seem able to recognise that this is an essential need if a person is going to continue to be a carer. Would the right hon. Gentleman entertain that approach?

Paul Burstow: To be honest, in this area the NHS is probably drinking in the last-chance saloon. If we do not see progress, legislation may be necessary. There is another way in which the money could, and should in future, be earmarked for this purpose. There have been transfers from the NHS to local authorities for the support of social care more generally, and in some local authority areas that has happened with the carers break money as well; it has been transferred. It has not happened everywhere, however, and I think it should now become mandatory, so this money gets spent for the purpose the Government said in their spending review it was for. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to expect, and the Government need to reflect on three years of this money not getting where it needed to be, after a number of years of that under the last Government as well.
	A survey by Carers UK found that in one in five cases where a person who was receiving care from family or friends was admitted to hospital as an emergency, that could have been prevented if the carer had received more respite care and support. This makes big differences financially to the NHS. It uses resources better, and that is why it beggars belief that the NHS has not yet made sufficient progress, with its partners in local government, to improve access to breaks for carers.
	Under the health service reforms, with clinical commissioning groups taking the lead, there have been some examples of improvement, such as in Huntingdon, where there is an interesting carers breaks project led by GPs. Partnered with Crossroads Care, they identify carers by meeting them socially, and prescribe breaks. Carers who are met in that way tell me they have for the first time had the experience of having raised their needs as carers and seen that translated into tangible action that made a difference for them. We need to see more of that. It is a vital lifeline.
	As has already been said, there are huge issues to do with identification of carers. Research by Macmillan has found that while over 70% of carers came into contact with GPs, doctors and nursing staff, only 11% of all carers reported that they had been identified as a carer by a health professional. We as a Government talk about making every contact count, and we should do so when it comes to identifying carers. I hope the Minister can look afresh at what we can do to challenge NHS England to fulfil its obligations. I hope the National Audit Office will take a look at how successive Governments have attempted to engage the NHS with the carers agenda.
	I want to finish by talking briefly about the Care Bill. It is no small thing that this is the first ever Government Bill to provide for carers’ rights. Until now, the cause of carers has been advanced by private Members’ Bills. Let me place on the record my appreciation for the work of the late Malcolm Wicks, whose Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 was a landmark in the rights of carers and a fitting legacy for such a thoughtful and generous Member of this House. For the first time, the Care Bill enshrines in legislation carers’ rights to an assessment of their needs and, importantly, establishes a duty to meet those needs which are eligible. It also establishes clearly the need to consult and involve carers in decisions about the care of those they care for.
	Although the Care Bill is hugely welcome, inevitably there are gaps and unintended consequences that must be addressed if all carers are to get the support they are entitled to. Following the Government’s welcome announcement last week of their intention to amend the Children and Families Bill to ensure that the rights of young carers are as strong as those proposed for adult carers, we must see the necessary changes to it and the Care Bill, and ensure that the rights of parent carers of disabled children, which have so far been neglected in both Bills, are not allowed to fall through the cracks.
	I look forward to colleagues’ contributions and hearing them draw on their experience of engaging with carers in their constituencies. I know from talking and listening to carers, and from tweeting about carers’ issues, the genuine and palpable outrage they feel because all too often they are overlooked and under-supported. We need to change that. The Government are making good progress, but more still needs to be done.

Barbara Keeley: The number of carers is growing, as is the impact of caring on the lives and health of carers. The right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) has touched on some of those issues, but I will go further.
	Analysis by Carers UK of data published from the 2011 census has shown that the number of carers has increased substantially, by 11%, since 2001, and there are 35% more carers over the age of 65. We know that carers often combine paid work with raising their own children, as well as caring for other family members. In fact, one in four women and one in six men aged 50 to 64 have caring responsibilities for family members who are older or disabled. If we think about that for a moment, we start to realise the difficulties. Of course, many of us know people in that situation, or may be in it ourselves. Some 3 million carers juggle caring with paid work, so it is not surprising to learn that full-time carers are more than twice as likely to be in poor health as people without caring responsibilities.
	Given all these stresses, carers should be getting advice and information to help them care, but it is becoming ever clearer that they are not. During the recent carers week, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, Members met carers to find out about their issues. Last week I went to a speed networking event, as I think it is called, here in the House, at which I met six carers. Two were carers of family members with cancer, two had cared for a partner or family member at the end of their life, and two were carers of spouses with Parkinson’s. Despite the differences in their caring, the one thing they shared was not having been given the information, advice and support they needed to be carers. As the right hon. Gentleman touched on to an extent, Macmillan Cancer Support tells us that carers of people with cancer come into contact most with health professionals, by whom they need to be identified and signposted. However, 95% of cancer carers are not getting a carers assessment.
	It was revealing to talk to carers of people with cancer about how this had affected them. Cancer patients, as we know, may have long days of treatment in hospital, yet no one had told the carers I spoke to that a discount was available on expensive hospital car parking costs. One of the carers had to buy a hospital bed for use at home by her daughter, yet she was given no advice on where to buy one.
	Similar issues crop up for carers of people with a terminal illness, but those carers are also juggling with the knowledge that they only have a limited time with the person for whom they are caring. Carol and Lucy were the two carers I met. One had cared for a partner and the other for her mother, both through to the end of their lives. Both said how much financial hardship they had had to accept to undertake that caring. The carer of her terminally ill mother could only get unpaid leave from her job and took it for 11 months. She lost her flat because she could no longer afford to pay the rent. It seems wrong that carers have to struggle on unpaid leave while caring for someone who is terminally ill. She never told her mother that the leave was unpaid or of the difficulties she was having.
	Carers of people with cancer and of people who are terminally ill both cited the same issue: as carers, they were mainly ignored by the health professionals they encountered. They rarely asked them if they were coping and they did not signpost them to carers centres or carers associations for help and advice. In the cases of the very few carers of people with cancer who managed
	to have a carers’ assessment, that had most often been prompted by a referral from a GP. As the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam says, 70% of cancer carers surveyed had come into contact with a GP, doctor or nursing staff, but they are in the health world—the NHS world—not the local authority world. Very few of them have contact with local authority staff.
	I think I met the same people at the event as the right hon. Gentleman, because I met John and Karen, who were each caring for a spouse with Parkinson’s. We have already heard some of the points that those carers made, but John said:
	“In more than 30 years caring for my wife, my won GP has never asked how I am. He provides excellent support for my wife, but has never asked me how I am coping as her carer”.
	Karen cares for her husband, who has Parkinson’s and was diagnosed only shortly after they were married. She says:
	“I gave up work to help support him. I’ve never been told about a carer’s assessment nor has my GP asked how I am. It’s as if you are invisible.”
	Parkinson’s is a long-term condition, but despite the fact that they might be caring for many years, only one in 10 Parkinson’s carers have been offered a carers’ assessment. Parkinson’s UK tells us that most are full-time carers, caring for someone for more than 50 hours a week—even up to 24 hours a day as the Parkinson’s progresses. Such carers are those most in need of advice, support and respite care or breaks.
	That all matters because the Care Bill puts great emphasis on carers’ assessments rather than the identification of carers and the need to signpost them to sources of advice and support. Last September, I introduced a private Member’s Bill, the Social Care (Local Sufficiency) and Identification of Carers Bill. Three sponsors of that Bill are in the Chamber. The Government, sadly, did not support my Bill and their Back-Bench Members talked it out. The clauses on the identification of carers would have ensured that NHS bodies had the procedures in place to identify carers, promote their health and well-being and ensure they receive information and advice. Those are the exact areas from which the carers to whom I have talked would benefit. As I said during the debate on the Bill, I believe that the key focus in identifying carers should be those with the heaviest caring commitments.
	The 2001 census found that 10% of all UK carers were caring for more than 50 hours a week. By 2011, that figure had more than doubled to 22%. It is worth noting, as I said during the debate on my Bill, that the proportion of carers in Salford who provide full-time care at that level has been higher for all of the last decade. It has not just changed, and I am sure that it is related to health inequalities.
	Two wards in my constituency have high numbers of people caring for people with stroke disease, heart disease or cancer, which means that they have the heaviest caring commitments. We know that full-time care can take a toll on the carer’s health, and the health needs of those carers must be recognised. We know that those caring for more than 50 hours a week are twice as likely to suffer ill health and that those caring for a person with dementia or stroke diseases are even more at risk.
	Early identification and support for those carers would mean that they can maintain their health and sustain their caring role better.
	The Carers Trust has a centre in Salford with a project to identify carers within primary care and at the Salford Royal hospital. Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to that centre for its work in identifying carers, which it has been doing within primary care for many years. GPs and primary health care teams in my constituency have started to tackle the task of identifying carers, but there is much more to do. The manager of the centre tells me that having established a network of links within GP practices to identify carers, local GPs made 300 referrals last year, but we have 20,000 carers in Salford, 5,000 of whom will be caring at the heaviest levels. So we need to ensure that health bodies take action that meets the scale of the task of identifying carers and referring them to advice and support.
	Young carers are the most hidden of all carers, and my Bill would have required local authorities to have a policy in place for identifying young carers and providing support for pupils in schools who are young carers. It would also have placed a duty on colleges of further and higher education to identify students who are carers and have in place policies to support them. Young adult carers at university or college have to balance giving care with their academic studies and learning. Some do that by caring at a distance, returning home at weekends or holidays to provide care, whereas others have to balance care and study by continuing to live at home and travelling to their local university so that they can maintain their regular caring roles. Hardly any of the carers I have talked about in my speech are in contact with local authorities or are likely to have had a carers assessment from a local authority. So the duty on carers assessments in the Care Bill would not help the carers I have met recently—the carers of people with cancer or of people who are terminally ill. And, as I have said, the local authorities are reaching only one in 10 of carers of people with Parkinson’s disease.
	Young carers are also not being reached or supported adequately. The Carers Trust feels that the current law surrounding identification, assessment and support for young carers is complex and incoherent. Young carers are vulnerable and compared with other children they are at risk of poorer outcomes if they take on excessive and inappropriate caring roles because the adult’s needs are not being met. We know that inappropriate caring roles have an adverse effect on a child’s educational and emotional development.
	The current position we have reached on that issue is most unsatisfactory. In its evidence to the Joint Committee on the draft Care and Support Bill, the Law Commission made it clear that it felt that young carers should be given the same rights as adult carers, so that the Bill became a single statute covering carers. Yet, young carers still do not have the same rights as adult carers in the Care Bill and there is no mention of them at all in the Children and Families Bill. That is not acceptable. The care services Minister and the children’s Minister have been making reassuring noises about meetings they have had to discuss this and about their intentions, but they have so far ignored a cross-party consensus among MPs and peers that they should act to improve young carers’ lives. Young carers should not be left with unequal rights compared with adult carers.

Norman Lamb: The hon. Lady said that we have so far ignored what she has been arguing for in terms of action. I just wanted to reassure her that I have absolutely not ignored that. I have said, I believe in the debate on the Queen’s Speech, that I would seek to meet the Minister dealing with the Children and Families Bill, and I have done that. I take the point the hon. Lady makes very seriously and I want to see action to address the concerns that she and others have raised.

Barbara Keeley: I thank the Minister for that point, but I have to tell him that he and the children’s Minister have to start to accept that making reassuring noises and having meetings is not enough.

Paul Burstow: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to be pushing this issue forcefully. We were given a commitment by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson) last week that amendments would be drafted, and presumably they will be tabled in the House of Lords. It would helpful for us to know, and to hear from this Minister, that the Government will shortly be publishing the amendments that will be made to the Care Bill as well as those that will be made to the Children and Families Bill.

Barbara Keeley: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point. I am, however, going to push the matter with the Minister because there was an opportunity in this regard. New clauses were moved during the remaining stages on the Children and Families Bill last week that were copies of clauses from my Bill, and they would have required those bodies that I talked about to have policies in place. We are not talking about a large financial commitment; we are talking about bodies having policies in place. Our schools, our colleges and our higher and further education institutions should have policies in place to recognise young carers, but up and down the country they do not have those. The disappointment that organisations outside here that support young carers will have felt results from the fact that the debate was managed last week so that those new clauses were not reached. That does not show good faith, and if I were a member of the coalition of organisations that support young carers, I would look at that and say, “I don’t know what the Government are going to do.” The Minister will have to accept that they are still disappointing people who have not been protected sufficiently by the law.
	I conclude by touching quickly on the financial context of social care and how it affects carers. Giving carers rights in the Care Bill is indeed a positive step, but the Local Government Association reminds us that the Government’s austerity programme and the need for further savings do not fit well with the aspirations of the Bill. Councils have had to reduce their adult social care budgets by 20% over the past three years. At least a quarter of those cuts are from reductions in services and increases in charges. Almost 90% of councils only meet needs that are at the substantial or critical threshold.
	Staff at our local carers centre told me that carers are being affected by the bedroom tax, the increase in the value of non-dependent deductions, fewer sources of grant funding, and reductions to care packages that
	appear to be driven by cutting costs, not by changes in need. That is particularly true where they are caring for somebody with a learning or physical disability. Worries continue into the future when the change from disability living allowance to the personal independence payment starts to affect carers. The Government’s own impact assessment published in February indicated that almost 10,000 fewer carers will be entitled to carers allowance by 2015 as a knock-on consequence of the loss of disability benefits following the introduction of PIP. Carers UK has calculated that this represents a £31 million cut in support to carers. We should bear in mind that if those carers were left unable to care as a result of not having access to those carers benefits, replacing the care that they provide would cost at least £300 million in replacement adult social care services. That is a serious point.
	This morning I asked a question about the loss of £28.3 billion of income for disabled people over the next five years through the combination of the welfare changes being made. We must take on board the fact that that loss of income will hit the carers of those disabled people. Carers, as we learned during carers week, are prepared to care. We must do better in supporting them.

Tony Baldry: It is good that the House has an opportunity today to debate the needs of carers. As co-chair of the all-party carers group, I welcome this debate. It provides us with an opportunity to be the collective voice for the 6.5 million carers in the UK.
	In the run-up to carers week Carers UK published a report entitled “Prepared to Care?” which had six important recommendations from carers about what they need to help them manage their caring role. They need better public understanding and recognition of carers. Carers should have access to information and the right support from the beginning. It is important to remember that every day 6,000 people take on new caring responsibilities in the UK, and from day one they need access to the right support, advice and information. Every day across the country there are people whose loved ones have a stroke or discover that they have been diagnosed with Parkinson’s or with age-related dementia, and they need support from day one.
	Professionals need to understand the role of carers and share information, decision making and planning with them. In her speech the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) made the point about the GP who treated a patient for years but never asked about the carer. Carers can no longer be treated as invisible. They need access to high quality practical and emotional support and information, as well as breaks from caring. The point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) about respite care is crucial. When Carers Oxfordshire surveyed carers in Oxfordshire last week about the issue that caused them greatest concern, not surprisingly access to respite care came very near the top of the list. Carers need flexible working practices, understanding from employers, financial support, and a fair and easy-to-navigate welfare system.
	A growing recognition of the number of carers in the country is evidenced by the fact that each year carers week gathers further and greater momentum. Carers week took place between 10 and 16 June. Alongside Carers UK seven other national charity partners—Age UK, Carers Trust, Independent Age, Macmillan Cancer Support, Marie Curie Cancer Care, the MS Society and Parkinson’s UK—came together to celebrate the contribution that carers make and to signpost them to the advice, information and support that they need.
	This year’s carers week was the largest ever, with more than 2,600 groups registering to take part and more than 10,000 events up and down the country—that is a lot of events. Those organising events included carers’ groups, service providers, local authorities, hospitals, domiciliary care services, hospices and GP services. Events in Oxfordshire included Carers Oxfordshire—the umbrella group for carers in the county—running outreach events and advice stalls at local Sainsbury’s, Asda and Waitrose stores. Last Friday, I visited an Oxfordshire branch of Sainsbury’s and lots of people came up and asked questions, which was fantastic, because people do not always recognise that they are carers. Outreach events to identify carers also took place in GP surgeries and town and church halls across the county.
	In Parliament, there was a “Question Time” event in Portcullis House with the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who is responsible for care and support. The event brought together the Association of Directors of Adult Social Care, Skills for Care, the Royal College of General Practitioners and Public Health England, alongside the campaign’s charity partners and carers, to debate how the NHS and social care can better support carers. Key issues discussed included the challenge of identifying and supporting carers when many people do not recognise themselves as carers, and how to ensure that carers are represented in the new NHS structures nationally and locally. Like all those taking part in today’s debate, I am sure, I was pleased when more than 100 parliamentary colleagues attended a parliamentary photocall in support of carers week. As the previous speaker mentioned, there was a useful speed networking event that enabled MPs to meet carers and hear their stories directly.
	Interestingly and usefully, this year’s carers week saw increased engagement and involvement of employers in the campaign, which is important because, as Carers UK polling earlier this year showed, 2.3 million people have given up work at some point to care for loved ones, and census data published in May show that more than 3 million people are juggling work and care. That is a huge number of people, so getting employers involved in understanding the needs of carers is very important. I am glad to say that Sainsbury’s has continued its sponsorship of the employers for carers campaign, with nearly all its 1,200 stores running events, linking up with local groups and organisations to raise awareness of the support on offer to carers. Crucially, Sainsbury delivered information and advice not only to its customers but to staff with caring responsibilities.
	I am also glad to say that Government Departments, such as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, held carers week sessions for their staff, as did a number of private organisations, as the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) mentioned. Those included
	the Michelin Tyre Company, KPMG, HSBC, British Gas, Northamptonshire police, the UK Border Agency, BT plc, Credit Suisse, Transport for London, the Financial Ombudsman Service and the London fire brigade. There is growing recognition from employers in the private and public sectors that they have a duty of care to those of their employees who are carers. In Oxfordshire, employers for carers, in partnership with Oxfordshire county council and Carers UK, launched a new membership hub for local employers large and small, which will give local employers the opportunity to share good practice in supporting carers to juggle work and caring and to raise awareness of the business benefits of keeping carers in the work force.

Kate Green: It is encouraging to hear that list of the many employers who want to support the carers in their work force, and I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says about spreading good practice among employers. Does he agree that the large employers have a particular role to play in working with their supply chains to spread good practice?

Tony Baldry: That is an extremely good point. These things are organic. A few years ago big employers such as Sainsbury’s would not necessarily have been involved in that way. Having been involved in carers policy over the years, what I find encouraging is that each year a further step is achieved.

Barbara Keeley: I had not intended to make this point earlier, but I will make it now because so much has been said about employers. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority does not allow MPs’ staff to take compassionate leave; it allows MPs to give only sick leave or maternity leave, as I discovered late last year. Given all the good work that has been done with employers, that is an issue the whole House should take forward.

Tony Baldry: One of the non-executive members of the IPSA board will shortly be work-shadowing me for a day, so I will certainly raise that valid point with her. I will give her lunch, out of my own taxed income, along with other colleagues who might want to talk with her, and the hon. Lady would be very welcome. I think that the board’s non-executive members have to take some responsibility for the way IPSA functions.

Norman Lamb: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not simply about employers having a duty to look after employees who have caring responsibilities; it is also about enlightened self-interest? It is an enormous own goal when so many employers lose really good and experienced employees, who could otherwise contribute so much to a business, because they have caring responsibilities. It is in their interests to keep those employees.

Tony Baldry: I entirely agree and hope that all employers see the enlightened self-interest in looking after carers. I think that there is a general recognition that everyone in the system has to start thinking about carers, particularly those who are caught in the sandwich generation and have to look after children and older relatives.
	The two colleagues who have spoken in the debate have already set out the broad context of the research done in carers week: about three quarters of carers felt unprepared for their caring role; four in 10 had reduced their working hours because of caring; nearly a third had missed out on the chance of promotion; almost half had used savings to pay basic bills, such as those for heating and food; and more than a quarter had taken out a loan or fallen into debt as a result of caring.
	I am conscious that many colleagues wish to speak. I will use the time remaining to highlight some specific concerns raised by Carers Oxfordshire. In anticipation of today’s debate, I asked Carers Oxfordshire about the concerns of local people. Unsurprisingly, there was a huge response from carers. I think that there is a feeling among many carers that one of the most important things is having their voice heard. The sorts of points raised were as follows:
	“Carers would like to hear greater clarification about the implementation of the Care and Support Bill along the following lines: ‘Carers are very pleased to see the rights of all carers to have an assessment so clearly defined in law. The concern is that the regulations are written in the spirit of the legislation i.e. of widening the access to help and support for carers. The national eligibility framework needs to reflect this and ensure that the threshold of eligible needs is not set too high. The risk is that local authorities will use the framework to restrict “eligible needs” on the basis of limited resources, which could mean many carers will not be any better off in terms of the help and support they receive. We must ensure there is not a postcode lottery in the way the framework is operated by local authorities.’”
	On respite for carers, respondents commented that it is
	“too expensive and too hard to get currently as care homes often don’t ‘allow’ bookings to be made well enough in advance to allow carers to book holidays. There is very little financial help for ‘stay at home’ carers. What about care vouchers similar to child care vouchers being issued, or tax relief on care costs?”
	With regard to GPs, the identification of carers is a really important issue. There
	“needs to be more emphasis from GPs and a greater recognition of carers’ contribution and value, including their health and wellbeing.”
	Another point was this:
	“Poor quality of care provided by care agencies is a huge concern. Quality, reliability and accountability are ongoing concerns for carers.”
	On carers in employment, concerns were expressed about the financial cost of care and the impact on those who have to give up work or reduce their working hours.
	The respondents continue with an interesting point:
	“Military carers and their family can suffer a significant disadvantage, to include homelessness due to ‘entitlement’ issues around properties when they take on caring responsibilities. Lack of recognition from the military.”
	They continue:
	“Carers want to see social care and nursing care fully combined as one discipline. As far as they are concerned they are one and the same thing. During one carer’s experience in the weeks prior to her mother’s hospital admission she had had three different teams visiting her throughout the day. They spent more time completing forms and leaving files than anything else. It was tiring and draining for her to have so many different people coming and going. Full integration of the two disciplines is key for continuity, to prevent duplication of effort and reduce needless bureaucracy.”
	Finally, they state:
	“Look at simplification of forms for applying for carers allowance and attendance allowance.”
	It is really good news that the Care Bill will consolidate and simplify decades of social care legislation in England. We must not lose sight of the fact that it will include significant and welcome new rights for carers to improve access to carers assessments and new duties on local councils to provide care services. I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) about young carers, but I am confident that those on the Treasury Bench have taken on those concerns and will table amendments to the Bill in the Lords to cover them.
	We are making good progress. The direction of travel is a good one, but we have to recognise that a huge amount of distance still has to be covered if we are to be proper advocates and protectors of the millions of carers in the UK who selflessly give themselves to look after a loved one.

Jonathan Reynolds: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. I congratulate the right hon. and hon. Members listed on the Order Paper on securing it.
	I want to make a relatively short contribution to place on the record my view that the work that carers do for little or often no reward should never be underestimated or forgotten. They provide care and compassion of the highest level in the most challenging of circumstances.
	I believe we need a far bigger and bolder response to meet the challenges of our increasingly ageing population. We need to recognise that in many circumstances a complicated mix of care is delivered by a combination of professional carers, family members or both. Carers need more support and that can only come from the Government. I want to address two issues in order to make that point.
	First, we should acknowledge the importance of creating a care industry that people aspire to work in by appropriately rewarding the work they do. Secondly, the Government need to recognise further the work of thousands of unpaid carers up and down the country.
	The demographic make-up of our population is obviously changing, which is already starting to stress our care system. That is happening against the backdrop of large-scale cuts across the system. According to the Local Government Association, local authorities have had to cut their adult social care budgets by 20% over the past three years, which means that in many places, such as Tameside, the metropolitan borough that my constituency covers, the amount of respite care available is being severely squeezed. I have seen some appalling cases in my surgeries—the kinds of cases that stay on my mind and often prevent me from sleeping at night because of the situation that many people face when the care they need is being taken away.
	Against the backdrop of cuts, many carers work day in, day out, delivering excellent care but for poor pay, whether they work in a residential home or in a person’s home. Many of them are paid little more than the minimum wage for a job that should not just be a job,
	but a rewarding career for life. If we as a society want to demand the highest standards of care for ourselves when we get old, we should at the very least be prepared to pay a living wage for those who seek to deliver it.
	That should happen alongside a concerted effort to improve skills across the care industry, investing in training and development to make the sector one in which people aspire to work. It could be a huge source of employment for the future—it is not possible to outsource care in the same way as we outsource other industries to another country—but I do not think that we even have a strategy to get us to that point.
	Secondly, I want to discuss the impact on non-professional carers of the current pressures in the care system. In Tameside, approximately 2 million hours of unpaid care are given every year. If purchased from a paid carer, that would cost in the region of £22.5 million. That puts a high strain on carers, as has been mentioned. In Tameside, people are substantially more likely to be in ill health if they are carers, and that is in an area that already has poor public health. We should all take the time to recognise the stressful and important work that carers do.
	Several of my constituents who are dedicated carers for the people they love have told me that they receive no recognition for the valuable work they do. That is why debates such as this are important. Many of them have had to give up their jobs, and in several cases the person for whom they are caring feels responsible for that, even though it is no fault of theirs.
	The burden on many of those who care for loved ones has increased since the Government introduced their welfare reforms in April. In Tameside, increasing numbers of carers are reporting stress due to financial worries. The Government’s impact assessment into the changes to disability living allowance and carer’s allowance and the introduction of the personal independence payment shows that almost 10,000 fewer carers will be entitled to carer’s allowance. That is a massive blow for those who care full time. Locally, the number of people who are seeking support to complete their benefit forms is increasing. How can it be right that we are penalising these people for the work that they do? Where are the Government to support these people when they so desperately need and deserve it?
	To conclude, I welcome the principle in the Care Bill of capping care costs. I do not think that it is set at the right level, but it is a welcome first step in reducing the burden of care. However, I believe that we need to explore a genuinely integrated health and social care system. That would not only help people to stay independent in their own homes for as long as possible, but reduce the burden on family members who deliver care each and every day. That is the challenge. I hope that we will see a developing political consensus, with Members on both sides of the House moving towards such a system, so that we can enshrine it, secure it and give people the system that they deserve and need for the years ahead.

Mark Williams: I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us this timely opportunity to talk about the role of carers in society. All the organisations that the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) talked about were UK-wide organisations.
	If I may, I will talk from a Welsh perspective, representing as I do the great Ceredigion constituency, although I appreciate that the Minister will not be able to address all the matters that are rightly devolved to our National Assembly in Cardiff.
	As we have heard, this year’s carers week seeks to highlight how those in the UK’s carer population are coping with their role as a carer and how well the Government are supporting them in that role. That is a huge issue and it is of growing importance. There are currently 6.5 million carers and that is predicted to grow to 9 million carers in 25 years’ time. We need to ensure that people in the wider population are prepared for their future caring responsibilities.
	I represent a rural constituency and we talk a lot in mid and west Wales about rural isolation. If we add to that the isolation that carers experience, it is a highly toxic mix and a huge challenge. That is coupled with the challenge of identifying carers, which the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) spoke about. I represent a huge tract of rural Wales that has scattered and sparse communities, including 147 villages. That makes it even more challenging to identify people and to build the networks that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) talked about.
	Ceredigion county council is attempting to rise to that challenge. It is taking part in this year’s carers week. The carers officer, Heather West, has informed me of an internal campaign that it has run to highlight the change in the known number of carers in the county. There was a 10% increase between 2001 and 2011 to 8,603 carers. There is also a huge number of people who provide care in excess of 50 hours a week. The numbers have grown and are set to grow further. The challenge in rural areas is to build networks so that we can initiate the support that is needed.
	I am sure that hon. Members have read the Carers UK report. That research shows that seven out of 10 carers in the UK state that they were not prepared for all aspects of caring. Eight out of 10 were not prepared for the emotional impact of caring. Eight out of 10 were not prepared for the changes to their lifestyle because of a new caring role. Seven out of 10 carers were not prepared for the change in the relationship with the person for whom they care. I met somebody in my surgery a few weeks ago who, in the wake of his golden wedding anniversary, received the bombshell that his wife had a terminal condition. That couple had envisaged having a parity of caring roles in their old age. To have that responsibility shift in such a dramatic way to the husband was a huge shock. Seven out of 10 carers were not prepared for the financial impact of their caring role. As we have heard, 6,000 people take on new caring responsibilities every day.
	The landscape has changed. In a previous life, 25 years ago, my first job was down the corridor in the House of Lords. I worked with pioneers in the carers movement, such as Baroness Nancy Seear and Baroness Jill Pitkeathley, who were trying to get official recognition for the term “carer” in statute. They achieved a great deal and we have achieved a great deal, but there is a long way to go.
	In January this year, Ceredigion county council launched its e-learning carer awareness course, which can be done online. As is necessary in west Wales, it is fully bilingual. I took it this week. The course consists of four main
	sections: “Who cares?”, “Carers and the law”, “Meeting the needs of carers” and a test. That concept was initiated by Dudley metropolitan borough council and has been adopted by 40 local authorities across the UK. It is an excellent way to prepare people for the role of carer. It is just one small tool that can raise awareness. Many of my constituents are online and can access such courses.
	The council is holding various events across the county focused on the “Prepared to Care?” theme. It has a widely distributed and widely read newsletter to update Ceredigion’s carers if they cannot attend the events.
	The authority has also taken the opportunity of carers week to promote the “Carers Count, Count Me In” campaign, which seeks to register the 8,603 carers in the authority who were identified by the 2011 census data, only a small proportion of whom are officially registered. The aim is to get all carers registered with the Ceredigion carers development office. The sound logic behind that is that the more carers who are registered, the stronger the voice they will have in our area and with the local authority when campaigning for resources from the Welsh Assembly Government. It will also ensure that carers are recognised and valued, and that they have better services to equip them for the role. This year, the staff of the county council who juggle work and caring responsibilities, many of whom did not realise that they were carers, were targeted and a number did join the register.
	A fantastic partnership has emerged between our carers development office and Aberystwyth university. They are researching the barriers and challenges in relation to carers needs assessments from the carer’s point of view. The research aims to highlight the support and advice that is available to carers and hopes to make the system more accessible. Critically, it will be independent research so that it can present an accurate and unbiased picture of what life is like for carers in our county.
	Aside from preparing us to care, carers in my constituency also raised the issue of the spare room subsidy, or bedroom tax, during carers week. The carers office of Ceredigion county council has spoken to a large number of worried carers who are having to deal with new payment requirements even though they require a second room because of their extensive caring demands. A number of them are going through the appeals process, having already applied for discretionary housing payments. Although the local officers are doing their utmost to support carers, I think that the rules are inappropriate for such constituents. Above all, the stress caused by such matters and—to be frank—the stress that a number of welfare reforms have created for carers in our community, gives me a great deal of anxiety.
	In July, Carers Wales will hold a number of local sessions across Wales to meet local carers and try to allay some of their fears. Concerns have also been expressed about the attitude of banks to Court of Protection enduring power of attorney, and the mismatch between the banks’ policy and its delivery on the ground has caused a huge number of practical difficulties for carers. The Government can assist our carers in all those areas, and alleviate—at least in part—some of the stresses and strains that they experience.
	As I have said, the debate has moved on and more people in the country are fully aware of what being a carer means—MPs certainly are from our casework
	every week and the people who come to our surgeries, and a new role needs to be pursued with employers and in the world of work. I wish the Government well in what they are doing, and I hope they will look at what I believe have been some helpful precedents across the border in Wales.

Tom Clarke: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) and his colleagues on initiating this debate, and we have heard some interesting and well-informed speeches.
	Some of my colleagues referred—understandably—to legislation, and they have high hopes of the Bill currently going through Parliament. A long time ago I had the privilege of piloting through Parliament the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. It was widely welcomed, but between then and now I discovered that although we can have an Act of Parliament, if it is not fully implemented it makes much less of an impression on people’s problems than we would like.
	For example, section 8 of that Act dealt with the duty of local authorities to take the abilities of carers into account. I am sorry to say that I have not seen great enthusiasm among local authorities to implement that provision, although there are some excellent exceptions. When legislation is passed, including the 1986 Act, we all have responsibility to work with carers organisations, which do a great job, and with carers in our constituencies, to ensure that the wishes of the House are implemented by health authorities, local authorities, the Department for Work and Pensions, and all those who have an influence on the lives of carers.
	Together with Lord Brian Rix, I co-chair the all-party group on learning disability, and we are worried about the issue of carers and return to it often. We recognise, as other hon. Members have done, the hard work that carers do every day for the most vulnerable people, and that often their voices are not heard. That is largely because their role in looking after young people—or young people looking after elderly people—is a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week job.
	As colleagues have said, caring is a stressful job and people receive few breaks to support what they are doing. In many cases, their commitment to the role is absolutely outstanding, touching and—as colleagues have said—deserving of statutory support that must be fully implemented. This is not my most important point, but carers have drawn my attention to the economics of what is happening, and it is right to mention that according to Carers UK, voluntary acts by carers save the UK public purse £119 billion per year. Do we not have a responsibility to respond? I believe we do.
	Let me explain why short breaks are important. Family carers need time off and a break from the constant work of caring. Some families access short break centres or schemes that involve placements with families. Others receive direct payment to purchase their own support—I very much welcome that and was involved in that legislation. As hon. Members have indicated, the current review of welfare has had many effects. My niece and nephew are carers at weekends and look after people with learning
	disabilities. They stay overnight and therefore need a room for themselves. Under the Government’s legislation, however, and the tax we all deplore—the bedroom tax—we find that it might not be possible for them to continue doing that job. It would also be hard for their clients to find a smaller house that can be adapted in the way their current houses are, quite apart from the problems and upset that such a move would mean.
	In 2003, a report by Mencap showed that eight out of 10 carers were at breaking point. Its 2006 report showed that the number had fallen to seven out of 10, but new research indicates that it is now back to eight out of 10. I do not believe that we in Parliament distinguish ourselves if we allow such conditions to continue throughout our country and in individual homes and communities in our constituencies.
	The vast majority of carers are not being offered the short breaks they desperately need. One carer stated:
	“When you care for someone 24 hours per day and you know it’s going to be for ever, sometimes a short break is your only hope.”
	I am sorry to say that we do not often deliver that. Of the few carers who access short breaks, most do not feel that the services are adequate, and seven out of 10 say that they do not receive services that fully meet their family’s needs.
	I acknowledge the Government’s recent investment of £1.2 billion in services for people caring for children and adults, but according to Mencap—a well-informed organisation that does work on the ground—there have been no improvements in the well-being of family carers a decade after the issue was first highlighted.
	I speak as a former councillor and former president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, but I am disappointed with the role of local councils. Many are failing to meet their duty to assess needs and regularly review care arrangements. Despite the role of local authorities—I do not mention health boards, although they are important too—the startling facts are that six out of 10 carers have never had a carer’s assessment to identify their needs. Worse than that, two out of 10 said that they had been refused an assessment altogether. Mencap says that after 10 years that is simply unacceptable, but I would put it much more strongly: it is a blight on all of us.
	The big issue is that families simply do not know how to access those vital short breaks. Three out of 10 family carers have never had a short break and do not know how to access them. Much more must be done. The fundamental failure of some local authorities to provide information about what is available is not acceptable, even from a statutory point of view. Carers are being left in the dark, without support and on their own. Local authority spending is in decline. According to Mencap, spending by local authorities on children’s short break services peaked in 2010-11, but 63% of local authorities reduced this expenditure in 2011-12. In the current economic climate, money must be saved—we understand that—but not on the back of those who have already sacrificed so much for the most vulnerable, including family members and others.
	Spending on adult services has also fallen consistently over the past three years, with 54% of local authorities reducing their spending on short breaks for adults in
	2012-13 compared with the previous year. We need to listen to what carers take the time to tell us. One carer felt “absolutely devastated” and continued:
	“I have sobbed over the way”
	the council
	“has informed us of their decision to close this wonderful care home.”
	I say again that we cannot balance the books on the backs of hard-working people or build a better society by disregarding those who give the most.
	So what needs to be done? We need substantial and meaningful action from the Government, local authorities, health bodies and service providers. No family carer should be left to reach breaking point and every family that needs a short break should get one. Each carer should have their needs identified and should not feel that they are alone and without support. Money that is intended for short breaks should be spent on providing short-term breaks. We need services that are person-centred and able to meet the differing care needs of the people who use them. Information about local need for short breaks should be collected more consistently, distributed accordingly and used to inform what services are made available to all the public.
	I end with a quote provided by Mencap. This parent said:
	“I love my children and that keeps me alive but I’m worn down…When I can’t cope I self-harm as I have to carry on but it’s too much to handle at times.”
	Carers’ voices must be heard, their needs must be met and they must never feel defenceless and alone.

Sarah Newton: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), who has made a huge contribution not only today but throughout his parliamentary career—as a Minister and now from the Back Benches—in raising these issues.
	I had the great privilege of being parliamentary ambassador for carers week for the Conservative party, along with my coalition partner, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam. Rather than trying to cover what was an encyclopaedic summary of the issues affecting carers, the excellent research communicated during the week or, indeed, many of the points made by colleagues on the Opposition Benches, I would instead like to back up everything that he said in describing so well the challenges and opportunities and summarising the Government’s position. I will then make some reflections and observations on my time as an ambassador.
	I would like to congratulate the organisations that came together to form carers week, because they achieved something quite remarkable. More than 26,000 organisations across the UK came together and put on more than 100,000 events. Why is that important? From the events I attended, I realised it was vital to raise awareness of the services and financial help available for carers. Like many other Members, I am sure, I often find in my casework and when visiting organisations in my constituency that those who most need help are often the least likely to access it, and we have to work hard to ensure that the legislation, the benefits and the rights that we provide for in the House get into the hands of the people who really need it.
	When attending the events in my constituency, I was struck by a fundamental problem touched on by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams): many carers do not identify themselves as such. I spent some time in the lobby of the Royal Cornwall hospital trust alongside volunteers and care support workers from the Cornwall Rural Community Council. They would approach people who were clearly carers—elderly people pushing people in wheelchairs, coming into hospital, attending appointments or leaving hospital—and ask them, “Are you a carer?” They would ask them very nicely and in a friendly manner, with a view to engaging with them to ensure they were getting the help to which they were entitled, but the people would hurry on saying, “No, I’m not a carer.”
	If, however, we asked whether they looked after someone—a husband, wife, child or loved one—they replied yes. If we asked them, “Do you regularly provide support perhaps through cooking meals or going shopping?”, they replied yes. We need to think about that a bit more in our desire to find out who carers are and ensure they get the support they need, whether from the NHS, councils, employers or the voluntary sector and wider community. We need to think about how we frame the conversation to enable people to identify themselves as carers, because most of the people I spoke to said, “Well, I’m just doing what any family member would do. This is what families do.” If somebody is ill or has a disability or care need, families gather round. I took that from my meetings last week, and it is particularly important in literature. Central Government produce a lot of literature, and a lot of benefits leaflets go out through the Department for Work and Pensions and throughout the health service, so we should think about the terms we use and how we can engage with people in that literature.
	Another thing I reflected on after speaking with carers last week—this came out in the reports—was the evidence on the number of people who gave up work to care. This can have a detrimental impact on the carer: they miss the social contact provided at work and can feel quite isolated and often trapped at home, especially in remote rural areas, such as those in my constituency, where it is difficult to use public transport and connect to wider society. It also has a detrimental impact on household incomes and pension provision. The main question that Carers UK is asking the whole nation is the right one: are we prepared to care? It is a question for the whole of society. Are employers prepared to provide those flexible working opportunities to enable people both to attend to their caring responsibilities and to work?
	We have to be realistic, however, because many people are worried about their job at the moment, and so, for fear of losing their job, are unlikely to talk to their employer about the need to work flexible hours. The Government need to engage with employers—there are exemplars, such as BT, with a long track record of recruiting and retaining older workers and enabling flexible working—about the research and the issues and to get them thinking about making it easier for their staff to request flexible working. The huge triumph in employment in the past century was to enable women to juggle caring responsibilities for children and work. In this century, as we respond to significant demographic changes, we need a massive shift to enable workers of all
	ages to combine other caring responsibilities. For older people and people with disabilities, that is a very important lesson from carers week.
	Carers told me that even if they wanted to carry on working—if they had the income and were prepared to pay for care, or have a mixture so that they would do part of the caring but pay for people to come into the home to support them, and their loved ones agreed to that—they were anxious about the quality of the care they would be inviting into their homes. All of us were horrified by recent revelations about some of the carers going into people’s homes, whether they were paid for by individuals or local authorities as part of their domiciliary care service. Until we crack the nut of ensuring that high quality, well-trained and well-paid carers are going into people’s homes, people will have a great fear and reluctance to try and combine caring responsibilities with employment.
	We find a sad position in too many local authorities. We all understand that councils’ budgets are under a lot of pressure. I was a councillor and I know that it is difficult to balance all the needs of one’s community with conflicting demands on what the council should be spending its money on. No two people agree on what a council’s priority should be. For me, it is straightforward: a council’s responsibility, like central Government’s responsibility, is to prioritise the care of the most vulnerable people in society. However, in contracting for domiciliary care, local authorities are cutting their payments so low that it is difficult for private care providers to provide a good quality of care while remaining economically sustainable. That reduces the options available for the vast majority of people who self-fund care.

Norman Lamb: I agree very much with the points my hon. Friend is making. Instead of commissioning on the basis of a quarter of an hour and a race to the bottom with the lowest bidder winning the contract, does she agree that commissioning that provides incentives to improve the well-being of the individual being cared for—maintaining their mobility and improving their capacity to remain independent—is the way in which local authorities should be contracting providers of care at home?

Sarah Newton: I absolutely agree that local authorities should be remorselessly focused on the best possible outcomes for the people they have a duty to provide care for. They should also understand that while the vast majority of people are not eligible for local authority care, local authorities have a responsibility as market shapers in their localities to ensure that private, third and voluntary sector organisations are able to provide the care services that most people pay for themselves. By constantly engaging in a race to the bottom, they are undermining the ability of those organisations to provide services to the community. Most private or third sector domiciliary care providers need a certain amount of contracts or business from the local authority.

Paul Burstow: My hon. Friend is making an important point about the patchy quality of domiciliary care. There are good examples, such as in Wiltshire, where the service has been remodelled to focus on outcomes. However, there is an issue about whether the Government
	have the necessary powers to ensure that where poor commissioning practice is allowing contracting by the minute, which is resulting in sub-standard care to an individual, they can ensure good quality commissioning practice in the future. The Joint Committee on the draft Care and Support Bill has recommended a change in the law and the Government are doubtful of its need. Does she agree that the Government need to keep thinking about that and perhaps come back with an amendment?

Sarah Newton: I back what my hon. Friend says. The Joint Committee’s report was excellent and showed Parliament at its best. People with tremendous experience from the House of Lords and this place worked together to scrutinise and improve that excellent Bill. The Government should be commended for introducing it at a time of economic restraint, especially as it has financial consequences: spending more money on supporting carers is a bold thing to do at the moment and it underlines the great value we put on carers. I back my hon. Friend in his call for an amendment, because if local authorities are tempted to avoid doing what we would all regard as the right thing—to look after the most vulnerable people in our society—we need to tighten up the law to remove that temptation from them.
	I would like to share another issue that was raised in carers week. The strong message from carers was that they do not always feel involved in the decisions made by professionals about the people they are caring for. The Government have, rightly, enshrined in their health and social care reforms the principle that “No decision should be taken about me without me.” I would like to extend that so that “No decision is taken about the person I am caring for without me.” I have heard far too many cases, in my own case work and during carers week—particularly from parents caring for children with disabilities—where substantial decisions, on whether their children should cared for away from their home many hundreds of miles away, were considered without proper discussion with the parents. That is absolutely wrong. There is a prevalent attitude among some professionals that they know best: “Trust me, we know what is best for your child. Trust me, we know what is best for your wife or your husband.” While I would like to be able to trust all professionals—we think that by and large they do have the best interests of people at heart—there should be openness and transparency. Carers should be involved in decisions, so that there is a joint agreement and an understanding about what is in the best interests of the person being looked after.
	On a more positive note, I would like to share some of the good practice I saw during carers week. I saw great examples of innovation involving the voluntary sector, in particular. We have talked about statutory provision and what employers can do, but broader civil society and the voluntary sector have an enormous role to play too. I would like to share two examples from Cornwall, one of which is from my own constituency.
	A group of people in Falmouth in my constituency responded to the Prime Minister’s dementia challenge by wanting to ensure that everybody in the community supported people with dementia. More than 200 organisations in Falmouth got together to make it a dementia-friendly community. I was proud, in my hometown, to be at the
	launch a couple of weeks ago, and I was proud that it was the first town in Cornwall, and probably one of the first in the country, to be a dementia-friendly community.
	What does it mean to be a dementia-friendly community? It means that the shopkeepers in the high street have gone through awareness training. It means that we have dementia cafes and that the people in the youth centre are aware of people with dementia. Overall, it means that people who suffer from dementia, or are caring for someone who suffers from dementia, can go into Falmouth with confidence, knowing that they will receive a warm welcome in the shops, libraries, public spaces and the youth centre. The people there will understand more about dementia and some of the behaviour that comes with it. Some people might find that behaviour a little bit challenging and scary, which often makes the people who care for someone with dementia want to stay at home. They can be fearful of the response they will receive in a public space and end up becoming isolated. I can honestly say that people with dementia will receive a very warm welcome in Falmouth, thanks to the huge amount of work done by a small group of volunteers ably led by the Bridges, who are Rotarians in Falmouth.
	The whole community has got behind this exciting project—indeed, so much so that another group of people in Falmouth, led by a former nurse, Lisa Dann, has been working with Dementia UK over the last year to raise enough money for two admiral nurses. For those who do not know, admiral nurses, who are similar to Macmillan nurses, are specialist nurses who work alongside those with dementia and their carers, providing a lifeline for people coping with what can be a very difficult condition. Lisa was motivated to set up the charity and raise funds because of the poor support that her mum and her family received when her dad was suffering, before sadly dying from dementia.
	Lisa has created a fantastic legacy in recognition of her father by raising enough funds—£60,000 in one year, which is a great credit to her, her team and the community—for the whole of Cornwall to have two admiral nurses. Her group is working innovatively in a partnership with a large social enterprise in Cornwall—Cornwall Care, which is the largest independent care provider in the county—to make the scheme sustainable. The group will be raising more money for more admiral nurses, which will provide a huge amount of support for carers, as well as people suffering from dementia. That is a good example of how the voluntary sector and volunteers can create a caring environment for carers.

Norman Lamb: I came across another example in my hon. Friend’s county called Changing Lives, where GPs work together—

Sarah Newton: I was just about to come to that.

Norman Lamb: I very much agree with my hon. Friend about the role of civil society. That will be a vital collaboration if we are to meet the challenge, given the rise in the number of people who need care.

Sarah Newton: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. When the hon. Lady addresses that point, will she also pay attention to the fact that there are other Members who wish to speak and that she has been speaking for nearly 18 minutes?

Sarah Newton: I am grateful for your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am sorry. It is just that I am so passionate about this subject that I have lost track of time.
	I am pleased that the Minister remembers that experience—this was the final point I was coming to—and has agreed to meet Tracey Roose from Age UK and Ian Jones from Volunteer Cornwall quite soon to take forward what he experienced first hand in Cornwall with some more ideas. Changing Lives is a fantastic example of how volunteers can work with GPs to ensure that people have access to all the care and support that they need to live happy, fulfilled lives in their communities. The pilot in Cornwall has had some quite dramatic results, not only in terms of carers feeling better supported and the vulnerable, frail older people concerned having a better quality of life, but in huge savings for the NHS, with 30% fewer unplanned admissions in our acute trust.
	These are all the things that we instinctively and intuitively know—that if people get good advice, the help and support they need and opportunities to play their part in society, they can live independent lives at home. The Government can be proud of much of what they are doing, but given the concerns of carers we have heard throughout the week there is clearly still much more to do. I for one look forward to supporting the Government’s efforts to make this a proud country and a great place to grow old and care for people.

Debbie Abrahams: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on organising this debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak after such thoughtful contributions. I want to focus on unpaid carers; I will leave others to talk about the care system as a whole.
	As we have heard, carers play a vital role, not just for their family members and friends but for the country. In the past decade, the number of carers has grown from just under 5 million to nearer 7 million. By 2037, it is estimated that the number will have increased to nearly 9 million. In my constituency, there are 11,076 unpaid carers, nearly a quarter of whom provide care for more than 50 hours a week. As has been said, we know that this is an underestimate of the actual number who provide care. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South talked about the lack of information and advice, which has certainly been identified in my constituency. Age UK in Oldham recently opened an information and advice centre, and I hope that people will avail themselves of that. Like other Members, I, too, have had the plight of carers increasingly brought to my attention in my surgeries. Their situation is a growing problem.
	In today’s terms, the role played by carers saves the economy £119 billion a year. That is more than the total NHS budget and nearly six times the adult social care budget. The country could not survive without the work that carers do, and that is even more so today, with the crisis that social care is facing. We are facing the double whammy of an ageing society—it is great that we are, on the whole, living longer, although austerity
	is certainly having an impact on life expectancy—and a meltdown in social care in local authorities, with cuts to their budgets having an impact on social care budgets. Unfortunately, carers are picking up the tab. A recent Carers UK survey showed that a third of those caring for more than 35 hours a week have no support at all. Although 3 million carers juggle work with caring responsibilities, one in five has been forced to give up work.
	In addition to the lack of support for caring, carers across the UK are starting to see the impact of the Welfare Reform Act 2012. Changes to financial support with housing and council tax in some areas mean that many families are experiencing reduced financial support from more than one of the changes. The discretionary funding set aside by councils to support people affected by the bedroom tax is enough to help only one in 10 disabled people. Carers who require an additional room because they cannot share with partners who sleep in hospital beds, or parents of disabled children who need the space for care workers to provide overnight care are being seriously let down. More than 5,000 families with care needs are faced with either moving or finding an extra £700 a year.
	The cumulative effects of the economic downturn, a squeeze on wages and the increasing costs of essentials such as food and fuel, along with the cuts in social security support, are making it more difficult for carers to manage. More than four in 10 carers in the Carers UK survey said they had been in debt as a result of caring. This year will see other changes to the benefits system, as the transfer of disability living allowance to the personal independence payment and the universal credit are introduced, which is also of considerable concern to many carers. DLA was the gatekeeper to carer’s allowance. The changes mean that 10,000 fewer carers will not be entitled to carer’s allowance. Many of us have already called on the Government to review these changes and undertake a cumulative impact assessment of the effects of these welfare reforms. For many, they will be the tipping point.
	In addition to that, and as a consequence of debt and a lack of support, there are significant effects on the health of carers. Eight out of 10 carers report that their caring role affects their physical health and nine out of 10 say that their mental health has suffered. This is not only a human tragedy; we are storing up problems for the future by not caring for our carers.
	I know about that from my personal experience of caring for my mum—I have spoken about her before—who died of Alzheimer’s last September. She had Alzheimer’s for 10 years, and for the last three years was unable to communicate or to feed or toilet herself. Although my mum lived in the States, I provided respite care during leave, so I can personally attest to the physical and emotional toll that it had on me. In the last few months of her life she was bedridden. I am little, but I am fairly fit and strong, yet physically trying to lift her to bathe her or change her continence pads was something I found really difficult to manage. The worst thing was the emotional toll, however, as I worried how everyone was coping.
	I want to spend the last few minutes talking about young carers. One of the last research projects I worked on before I was elected to this place concerned the effect
	on young carers’ health of their caring role. Many people will be surprised to learn that, according to recent census figures, there are more than 178,000 young carers in England and Wales. Those are the official figures, but we know that they are an underestimate. Children as young as five are looking after family members who are physically or mentally ill or disabled, their roles ranging from doing household chores to providing nursing or personal care.
	The effects on those children and young people are immense and lifelong. Because of their caring responsibilities, nearly a quarter of young carers often miss school or have educational difficulties. Young carers are also more likely to grow up in poverty, to be socially excluded, to have low aspirations and achievement and to have relationship issues. Those problems can follow them throughout their lives. There is also evidence of significant effects on their physical and mental health, with anxiety, depression and self-esteem issues being particularly prevalent. It has been shown that, after a year of caring, morbidities fail to return to pre-caring levels.
	Services do not always respect young carers and the role that they play. My research indicated that many young people felt excluded from discussions about their family member’s care, even though they were providing much of it. Some of the responses to questions on whether the young carers should be allowed to see their parents in hospital, for example, were quite heartbreaking. Similarly, many young carers felt that there was a lack of understanding and support from their teachers and schools. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South said about this. We must ensure that schools take seriously their role in supporting young carers.

Barbara Keeley: I have mentioned the fact that we have a young carers project in Salford that is doing great work. It was interesting, however, that one of the schools involved came back to the project and said, “We have no young carers at all”, when the project knew that it did. The perception among some head teachers is that they do not have any. Is my hon. Friend worried about that as well?

Debbie Abrahams: I totally agree with my hon. Friend; that is very worrying, and we must try to do better by those young people.
	I am encouraged by what the Minister has said today about the discussions, but I reiterate my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South’s sentiment that warm words are not enough. Will he tell us when we can expect to have the amendments included in the Children and Families Bill? The rights of parent carers of disabled children are also still in limbo, and the Government must bring forward changes to the Bill to ensure that the rights of that group of carers are not left behind. I recognise the Government’s commitment to carers’ rights, but I reiterate my earlier remarks: no matter how much we legislate for assessing carers’ needs, it is meaningless without the means to implement it. Local authority budgets have been pared to the bone, and that is having an impact on social care budgets. How are we going to deliver those assessments? A further £800 million of cuts are planned for this year alone. I would be grateful if the Minister would address that point as well.

Iain McKenzie: I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee and the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) on securing this important debate. It is a pleasure to contribute to it. I was delighted to be invited last week to Inverclyde’s national carers week event, the theme of which was “Prepared to Care?” A marvellous week of activities was organised to highlight caring, and special thanks must go to the secretary of the local carers forum in Inverclyde, Mrs Christina Boyd, who put together an interesting week of activities for the carers who attended.
	On the day I attended, my local leisure company demonstrated keep fit with carers. It was announced as low-impact seated aerobics, and of course I took part. It is difficult to describe it, and perhaps difficult for Members to visualise it, without the accompanying music. Perhaps we should consider introducing it in the House, although I dare say that some members of the public think that we already have.
	The focus should be on carers all year round, not just for one week. We need to recognise and support the work that they contribute, both on a personal level and to our community and society as a whole. That contribution has never been greater. The statistics on caring up and down the country are quite staggering. One in eight adults is a carer, which equates to about 6 million people. Every day, another 6,000 people take on a caring responsibility, equating to more than 2 million people a year. More than 1 million people care for more than one person. It has been estimated that carers save the economy £119 billion a year—an average of more than £18,000 per carer.

Katy Clark: I congratulate my hon. Friend on making those points. He will appreciate that many carers are older people. Has he, like me, been approached by constituents—women in particular—who are upset that they will lose their carers allowance when they reach retirement age? Does he agree that it would be appropriate to have some form of carers supplement for such people, not only in recognition of their contribution but to meet the additional costs involved in caring?

Iain McKenzie: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. Many of my elderly and women constituents have approached me with that very big worry in mind. It is something that we need to look at, and that the Government need to respond to.
	More than 3 million people juggle care with work, but the significant demands of caring mean that many carers are forced to give up work altogether. The main carers benefit is £58.45 for a minimum of 35 hours. That is the equivalent of £1.67 per hour, which falls far short of the national minimum wage. However, 1.25 million people provide more than 50 hours of care per week.
	Carers’ health can also suffer. People providing high levels of care are twice as likely to fall sick. The fact that 625,000 people suffered mental and physical ill health last year as a direct consequence of the stress and physical demands of caring illustrates the true impact on carers’ health. Research by Carers Scotland found that almost half of carers with health problems reported that their conditions began after they started caring. Of
	those whose condition pre-dated their caring role, a quarter said that their condition had worsened since becoming a carer.
	Caring clearly takes a huge toll on carers’ physical and mental health, and those not receiving respite are far more likely to suffer from mental health problems. The impact is often exacerbated by carers being unable to find time for medical check-ups or treatment for themselves, with two in five carers saying that they are forced to put off treatment because of their caring responsibilities. Research by Carers UK includes cases of carers discharging themselves from hospital because of an absence of alternative care.
	I took questions from carers at the carers forum last Friday, and it was no surprise that their biggest worry at the moment is the bedroom tax. The Government should urgently review the impact that the charge is having on carers, because the vast majority of care in the UK is provided by family and friends. The work that family and relatives do so willingly is often ignored or goes unseen. Family carers are truly the unsung heroes of our communities. Social services and the NHS rely on carers’ willingness and ability to provide care, yet we as a society seem to put very little value on carers or recognise their commitment.
	Social isolation and social exclusion are often remarked on by carers. They feel very isolated and report not having enough respite to have personal relationships of their own. They also report the stress and guilt associated with taking time off from their caring role. Many have not had even a day off in a whole year.
	Many carers and carer households are often in poverty because carers have had to give up work or take on part-time work. They say that they could not otherwise fulfil their role as a carer. Of those in part-time work, many are in low-paid employment, and young carers are more often found in the NEET category—not in education, employment or training—or leave school with fewer qualifications.
	What of the professional carers? According to a recent report on the plight of carers in the UK by the union Unison, the current system of home care is failing the people who receive it and the people who provide it. Unison describes the treatment of those receiving care and of workers as an outrage. It says private home care workers are being exploited—effectively paid below the minimum wage and given little or no training. Care workers are among the most poorly paid workers in the country; most are on the minimum wage, and there has been an increase in the number of zero-hours contracts. More than half of the care worker respondents to the recent survey reported that their terms and conditions had worsened over the last year.
	What about the level of training? Can we say it is adequate? Well, 41% of care staff are not given specialist training to deal with their clients’ specific medical needs, such as dementia and stroke-related conditions. Standards and training are insufficiently regulated. We should compare this with Germany, where carers require several years’ training.
	What of the care provided by our local authorities? Local authorities are being squeezed at this time of austerity and having made all the efficiency savings they can, they are now in a dilemma—at least they are in Scotland. They have to make very hard decisions and
	have to meet the challenge of delivering core services such as care with reduced funding while maintaining the same level of quality. I fear that things will only get more difficult for local government to continue to deliver high-quality care.
	In conclusion, we owe the millions of carers out there the respect and all the assistance we can give them because some day we may just find ourselves performing a caring role or being cared for ourselves.

Andy Sawford: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this important debate, which affects so many of our constituents around the country. I add my appreciation and congratulate the Members who requested the Backbench Business Committee to provide time for this debate, and indeed the Backbench Business Committee itself on recognising the significance of this issue. This debate is timely because many Bills and other measures either before the House or to be debated over the coming weeks and months will have a huge impact on carers.
	Before dealing with that, I want to speak about why this issue is so important to many of my constituents. There are 14,980 carers in Corby and East Northamptonshire —a rise of 23% over the last 10 years, which is higher than the 11% rise nationally. There are nearly 3,500 carers in Corby and East Northamptonshire who care for more than 50 hours a week—a rise of 40% over the last 10 years, which is far higher again than the national average increase of 25%. Of those nearly 15,000 carers in my constituency, more than 8,000 are juggling work and caring, which presents many issues.
	I support the points that other hon. Members have made about the need for employers to demonstrate really good practice in this area and support employees who have caring responsibilities. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) in deploring the fact that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is not prepared to set a good standard in this place, where Members are not allowed to grant their staff compassionate leave. I think we should be an exemplar in this and should work together across the House to urge IPSA to change its practice.
	In my constituency, many people are employed through employment agencies. Even where there are opportunities for employers to show their employees that they are good and caring, many of my constituents will not be touched by that. They will find that they are not able to continue working and caring. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) referred to the amount of the carer’s allowance. It does not compare well with jobseeker’s allowance, for example. We should have an aspiration to improve it. In recognising the significant number of people involved and the huge cost implications of trying to increase the support for carers out there, we must also recognise that the carer’s allowance provides a very small amount for our constituents to live on. The financial challenges, as other Members have said, are getting much tougher at the moment.
	I attended various events during national carers week, including the event here in Parliament. I want to congratulate all the organisations that came together to
	organise national carers week. I met people from the Multiple Sclerosis Society, Marie Curie and other organisations, who told me about their experiences. I think they were absolutely right to bring carers themselves to talk to us here in Parliament about their experiences. They reflected many of the conversations I have had with my own constituents. I met a carer who cares for his wife who has MS and a former carer who cared for her husband who had cancer. They both asked me to champion raising the carer’s allowance. That is what I want to do today.
	Carers UK’s analysis of the recent census shows that the fastest-growing group of carers are people over 65 with caring responsibilities. There has again been a much more significant rise in those numbers in my constituency than nationally, with a 35% rise of older carers nationally compared with a 62% rise in Corby and East Northamptonshire. I am determined to engage with local organisations—including charitable and voluntary organisations that work with carers, but also local authority and local health bodies—to try to understand why the rise is so significant in my constituency, the extent to which those bodies have been able to respond to it and whether that trend will continue.
	Carers over 65 who receive the state pension are, as hon. Members have said, unable to receive carer’s allowance—despite the fact that they still face additional costs as a result of caring and have often lost earnings from retiring early to care. What plans do the Government have to provide more practical and financial support to people who spend their retirement caring for their partners, adult disabled children or their own older parents? My own parents are approaching retirement and they, like many people nowadays, find themselves part of what is called the sandwich generation. They not only help me to bring up my children, providing lots of extra help and support for child care, but increasingly find that they are taking on a care and support role for their parents. That matter should concern all of us. It is particularly important in the context of our full knowledge that we have an ageing population, which will present a growing challenge for us.
	Carers UK figures show that carers are out of work for an average of five years as a result of giving up work to care for an older or disabled loved one. Many struggle to return to work afterwards, yet find that their carer’s allowance stops very quickly. What support can be provided to help carers when caring comes to an end to ensure that they do not fall into financial hardship as a result of losing carers’ benefits? What can we do to help them return to work, retraining where necessary?
	I recently met a lady who came to my surgery in Raunds to talk to me about her experience. Her particular concern was about the impact of the bedroom tax, but she also told me how her life of caring for her husband had come to an end as he sadly passed away. She told me how unsupported she felt in the months afterwards, as some of the help and support she had hoped for—previously in place in part because of her caring responsibility—was taken away from her. She then found she had to contend with the bedroom tax on her large family house. She had no choice—either move from her family home quickly as she grieved for her husband or face financial destitution. I felt incredibly sad that she faced that situation.
	I was recently visited by my constituent, Mags Maguire, who told me about her mum, Mrs McKay. She asked for my help in trying to ensure that a care package was in place for her mother. I have tried on her behalf; I have, unfortunately, not made sufficient progress, but I will keep trying. Mags herself is a resourceful person. She recently contacted the occupational therapist again to describe the situation she faced. The occupational therapist replied:
	“Hi Mags, just to let you know...We rarely prioritise cases as critical, as this is for cases where if something is not done immediately it will be a case of life or death and if there is nothing else that can be done and provided to reduce that risk in the interim and the major adaptations are the only way to reduce risk. We can still be waiting 12+ months for works to be done under a ‘critical’ priority as the amount of funding available will affect the waiting list times.”
	Mags is merely requesting some small adaptations to the home in which her mum lives, and it seems to me that that ought to be possible.
	The occupational therapist continued:
	“I could not prioritise the case as urgent as Mrs McKay has a care package to meet her personal care needs and meals and also family to support.”
	The “care package” is, in fact, the family support. The family get Mrs McKay up in the morning, and the family provide the meals. The “care package” is not provided by anyone other than the family members themselves.
	I have personal experience, in that my granddad cared for my nan for many years. He died on the day after Boxing Day, 18 months ago. He undertook those caring responsibilities without any help or support—which, of course, saved the taxpayer a huge amount of money—and he undertook them willingly because he loved my nan hugely and they had spent their whole lives together, but by the end of his life his own health had suffered greatly because of the extra responsibility that he had taken on as a carer. He would have been happy to continue that responsibility, but an intervention should have been made earlier to provide him with at least some additional help and support.
	What was even worse was that after granddad died, we tried to arrange care and support for my nan, but for a long time were unable to do so. Then, late last year, I walked up her garden path to find that she was not sitting in her usual chair. I tapped gently on the window, as I always do, in order not to alarm her, and saw that she was lying on the floor. Fortunately there was a key in a safe and I was able to get into the house, where I called 999. My nan was unconscious for four days, and only after that were we able to obtain the care and support package that she needed. It should not take a stroke to secure a decent package of help and support, it should not take such a long time, and it should not be at the huge cost of the health of a partner, children or other carers.
	I think it important to look at the opportunities with which Parliament will be presented in the coming weeks and months. The Care Bill will consolidate and simplify decades of social care legislation in England, and I welcome some aspects of it, but it is disappointing that the new rights that it confers will apply only to adults. I was a member of the Committee that considered the Children and Families Bill. We pressed the points about young carers, and we were given some assurances. We received the same assurances on Third Reading, but the Government have still not explained fully how young
	carers will be supported in the same way as adults. I should like to see the details of their amendments as soon as possible.
	There are, of course, significant areas of disagreement between Government and Opposition on both those Bills, but we also welcome their positive aspects, which are due in no small measure to all the outside organisations that have helped to inform Parliament throughout the passage of the two Bills. Those organisations have contributed a huge amount, but I fear that, unless we see those amendments soon, they will have no real opportunity to contribute to the shaping of measures to help young carers.
	I want to say something about social care funding, but I must be briefer than I intended to be, so that other Members can speak. I should like the Government to think about the fact that the Dilnot cap does not cover charges for carers’ services. They may say that they do not intend local authorities to charge for those services, but we must recognise that all authorities face a huge funding challenge, and charges are therefore quite possible.
	As for the Welfare Reform Act 2012, the carers to whom I have spoken welcome the Government’s decision to retain carers allowance as an independent benefit rather than subsuming it in universal credit. However, there is serious concern about other aspects of the Act. Following the introduction of personal independence payments, 600,000 fewer disabled people will be entitled to support—600,000 people whom I think we should be trying to help. Moreover, 10,000 fewer carers will be entitled to carers allowance and about 5,000 will be subject to the household benefit cap, losing an average of more than £100 a week.
	Two thirds of those affected by the bedroom tax are disabled, but the discretionary money set aside for councils to support disabled people would be sufficient to support only one in 10 of them. Local authorities are in a very difficult position. I have been in touch with my own council in an attempt to secure discretionary support, but it simply does not have the money to provide it the help that it knows is needed.

Mark Durkan: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government constantly say that their aim is to help those who play by the rules and do the right thing. It is clear from what he and other Members have said that carers are people who do the right thing—who are motivated to do the right thing—and who play by the rules. Why should they be victimised by cruel rules that are being introduced as part of the Government’s welfare reform measures?

Andy Sawford: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Some of my constituents who are affected by those measures do feel victimised. What the hon. Gentleman said about fairness is absolutely right. We all want changes to be made in a fair way, but many of my constituents—not just the disabled people and carers who are affected—recognise the unfairness of the measures. The Government should think again about many of their proposals. I urge them in particular to take account of what Members have said today about the bedroom tax.
	There is much more that I could say, but I know that other Members wish to speak, so I shall end my speech.

Stephen McCabe: I congratulate the Members who helped to secure today’s debate.
	During the debate on the Queen’s Speech, I referred to the experiences of two carers in my constituency. One was Lynne Hanslow, who cares for her 96-year-old father, keeping him out of residential care. All that she asks for is a fortnight’s respite break each year, but this year, despite having given the council four months’ notice, she was denied that break and was abused by a local authority employee when she complained about her treatment. Not surprisingly, Ms Hanslow ended up having to go to her GP. A carer had been made ill by neglect and worry.
	I have spoken to the council’s director of adult services, but so far Ms Hanslow has not received the full apology that she deserves, along with a promise that that will not happen again. I believe that the council’s chief executive should make the apology, thus sending the signal that he means to take the needs of carers seriously and will not stand for his staff treating them with contempt. Ms Hanslow’s experience is one of the reasons for my conclusion that statutory respite care should become a legal, enforceable right for carers. We have tried the other approaches for too long.
	I also mentioned the case of Margaret McGarry. She cares for her frail elderly mother, who suffers from dementia. Her direct payments have been suspended, apparently in retaliation for her having had the temerity to go to a solicitor because she felt that the local authority was being unreasonable in terms of the flawed level of support that it was prepared to provide. There should be a much simpler independent review process for carers like Margaret McGarry who are treated in such an appalling way. The current system seems almost to be weighted in favour of officials and bureaucrats, at the expense of carers. I wonder whether the time has come for local authorities to create carers champions to look out for carers’ interests. I have come to the conclusion that local authority complaints procedures in much of the NHS these days are not about problem solving at all. They are about process. They are almost a game to create an illusion of accountability. I think we need a champion who will listen to carers’ concerns.

Paul Burstow: I think it is worse than that. The balance of power is entirely wrong. It is too much on the side of the local authority to which the individual is complaining. That is why we need advocacy, but it is also why we need to look at the case made in the Joint Committee report on the draft Care and Support Bill for the need for a tribunal service, to start to address these matters in a more impartial way, detached from the local authority. How can a local authority investigate itself?

Stephen McCabe: I certainly agree with that, although I would be reluctant for us to have a complex system that the carer has more difficulty accessing. I take on board the right hon. Gentleman’s point, however.
	In arguing for a champion, I am looking for someone like a councillor, with sufficient clout to intervene and right wrongs and cut through the madness and bureaucracy that all too often ends up punishing, rather than protecting,
	the carer. That does not mean we should not also have further review and appeal processes, but I want us to have something simple that people can make use of and that will make a difference.
	A champion might also do more to make sure the voices of ordinary carers are heard. I am thinking about the hidden carers that so many Members have mentioned—the people who are too busy caring to have time to attend the consultation sessions, which are organised to suit the convenience and working hours of the NHS and local authority officials, so these people are never heard.

Norman Lamb: I totally agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about giving a voice to carers, who sometimes are treated appallingly, not only by providers of care, but by some of the statutory services and local authorities. With providers, we have introduced, through the NHS Choices website, the ability for people, in TripAdvisor style, to speak out and have their say about poor standards of care, and we may need to do something similar for local authorities, because there should be no hiding place when people are let down in that way.

Stephen McCabe: I welcome what the Minister says. I am able to identify these people in my constituency, and I do not understand why it is so hard for the caring organisations to identify them.
	I wonder why we do not say that at the point when an individual qualifies for attendance allowance the local authority should be notified and instructed to commence consultations with the person and their carer, with a view to establishing a long-term care plan and review strategy. That could reduce the occurrence of crisis care episodes, and the authority could simultaneously start to develop a support plan for the carer, so the needs of the carer are at the centre of the care plan.

Paul Burstow: The hon. Gentleman’s point about attendance allowance is interesting and important. He may know that this week the Strategic Society Centre think-tank published an interesting report setting out how this area might be reformed in a way that provides just what he has described: a front door into the social care system. Does he share my surprise that we have a system that does not talk to social care at least in part because it is entirely paper-based? It is not electronic, and perhaps the Department for Work and Pensions needs to consider putting it on that basis, so the information can be shared more freely.

Stephen McCabe: I think I probably would agree with that, although the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that the Government are moving increasingly towards systems that do not allow for face-to-face exchange. I understand that that is one of the major disputes about what is happening in the DWP. I think it would make classic sense, however. All of us hear enough about joined-up government, and this is one area where a bit of joined-up government could save money and provide a much better service.

Barbara Keeley: I was at an event the other day—as was the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall)—at which somebody from the DWP was talking about this issue. They said
	they had tried a project to get their data to talk to the local authority’s data, but had given up because the local authorities all used different forms. That seemed to me to be appalling. The Minister might like to think about whether there could be guidance for local authorities. If local authority forms are all that is stopping this vital sharing of data, it is about time we dealt with that.

Stephen McCabe: One of the penalties of having been a Member of this House for quite a long time is that we get fed up with hearing such excuses. We know fine well they are nonsense; if we want it to happen, we can make it happen. That is the approach we should take.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) talked about older carers and carers who have been caring for older relatives, and I want to touch on one particular aspect of that. What will happen under the Government’s deferred payment equity release plans to surviving spouses who are carers, or elderly children caring for even older parents—it is not uncommon these days for a 70-year-old to be the carer for somebody who is 95 or 96, for instance? What rights will they have? In such situations, when the person who is being cared for enters residential care, what will happen to a carer whose name is not on the deeds of the house, although it may be their family home and they may well have lived there since marriage, or even childhood?
	We must ensure that these carers do not end up homeless, destitute individuals with no pot of money to support them when they end up needing care themselves. I am not sure that the deferred payment scheme as currently structured takes account of the risk for those carers, and it would be the cruellest of rewards if, after a lifetime of care, we left them in this predicament.

Norman Lamb: At present, when someone goes into a care home and they have to sell the home to pay for care, the position of the carer could be very precarious, but the arrangements for the right to defer payment potentially provide greater stability for the carer. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, however, and I will be happy to write to him directly about it.

Stephen McCabe: I am grateful to hear that the Minister will look at the issue. I acknowledge that the current system is far from perfect, but interest-related deferred payments could mean more of the pot being consumed, and therefore less for the remaining carer.

Liz Kendall: It is a real privilege to follow the excellent speeches made by Members on both sides of the House today. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us the opportunity to debate this crucial subject, and I particularly congratulate the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry).
	One in 10 of all adults are now caring for an older or disabled person—6.5 million in total, up 600,000 from 10 years ago. The biggest increases are among those aged over 65 and those caring for more than 50 hours a week. This is a huge change in society that we all need to do more to understand and get to grips with. Our care system simply would not function without the vital
	support family members provide for their loved ones; as many Members have said, their financial contribution is estimated at more than £100 billion every single year. Despite that, all too often, carers go without the support they deserve and desperately need to look after the people they love. That is why today’s debate is so important.
	The last Government made important progress in improving support for carers. We introduced new rights for carers, including the right, for the first time, to request flexible working. We improved information and advice, and had training programmes for carers such as the expert carers programme, the benefits of which I have seen in my own constituency through the brilliant work of CLASP, the carers centre in Leicester. We funded breaks for carers. Many Members have spoken powerfully about how important breaks are. If carers who are caring for many hours a week have a bit of a break in sight, it really helps them to carry on. We also introduced financial incentives for GP surgeries to identify carers and refer them to local councils for support. That was part of the quality and outcomes framework, which was introduced as part of the 2004 GP contract, and was the very first step in providing a specific financial incentive for GPs to identify carers.
	However, as all Members have said, far, far more needs to be done. Like many Members, I have seen in my constituency and within my own family the often desperate daily struggle that is still faced by too many people who look after a loved one who is disabled, physically frail or has dementia—sometimes all three. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who powerfully explained her own experience of the physical and emotional demands of caring for a loved one. As she said, there are the physical demands of helping someone to get up in the mornings. Carers can be exhausted from getting up two, three or four times in the night to help someone go to the toilet, and from helping them move around the home. There are also the emotional demands. When a carer sees the person they fell in love with become frail and perhaps lose some of their pride and strength, it is terribly upsetting. If a son or daughter sees the parent who brought them up and taught them about the world—for good or for ill—begin to fade as a result of dementia, and they begin to feel as if they themselves are becoming the parent, it changes something essential in the nature of that relationship. I have always believed that relationships are essentially what make us human. If someone has dementia and begins to forget the relationships they have, it takes something away from the carer, as well. Caring for a loved one is physically and emotionally demanding. Many Members have talked about the role of public services. Health professionals are taught to understand physical and mental illness, but not necessarily the wider emotional and social issues.
	I want to talk about three critical areas where we need to make progress, the first of which is identifying carers. If we do not know who they are, we will not get them the help and support they need. The second is ensuring they get the right information, advice and support from the NHS as well as social care. The third is helping carers to stay in employment, which many Members have talked about. That is particularly important as we all live longer and need to work for longer. If the public finances are to remain stable, we must do everything
	we can to help people in that regard. My hon. Friends the Members for Worsley and Eccles South and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) talked about the importance of identifying carers. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) said that there is a great deal of awareness of carers and of the use of that term, but lots of people still do not realise they are a carer or think of themselves as such; they are simply trying to be a good daughter, son, husband or wife. Others do not ask for support because they worry that people will think they cannot cope; there is a lot of associated guilt. We need to identify these hidden carers.
	There are many examples of good practice, but perhaps the best I have seen is in Torbay, where the issue of identifying carers in GPs’ surgeries and hospitals has been closely examined. If someone who has had a stroke comes in with a family member, it is recognised that that family member is likely to be a carer. A great range of support is provided. The approach taken in Torbay starts with the person who may need health care; as a result, they immediately talk about their family member.
	I want to offer some practical suggestions to the Minister on how to make further progress. Will he consider amending the quality and outcomes framework? At the moment, it provides a points incentive and a financial incentive for GPs to refer carers to social care services; but why not to other health services, if carers’ health needs are so important? Secondly, will he give guidance on the best questions used to indentify carers? When I recently registered with a new GP, the leaflet provided asked, “Are you a carer?” I knew what that meant because I am familiar with the policy debate, but most people would wonder what that meant—paid carer, unpaid carer?
	I spoke at the event that launched the research into attendance allowance claimants by the Strategic Society Centre and Independent Age. There are 1.3 million older and disabled people in England with very high levels of need. The research shows that 35% of attendance allowance claimants are cared for by a son or daughter, 30% by a partner, and 15% by another family member. The DWP has that information: I hope the Minister will talk to his DWP colleagues about drawing up a proper action plan.
	Thirdly, I want to join my hon. Friends in pressing the Minister on what action will be taken through the draft Care and Support Bill to identify young carers. Will he update us on his meeting with the Education Minister? What is the obstacle to amending the Children and Families Bill, the draft Care and Support Bill, or both? I tell the Minister that the Opposition will table relevant amendments if the Government do not.
	I turn now to improving information and advice for carers. Carers UK says that a third of those caring full time for an older disabled or seriously ill friend or relative receive no practical support, and those who do often find that services do not fit around their particular needs, especially if they are struggling to hold down a job. As many Members have said, these services still too often end up offering last-minute help and support, when families have already reached crisis point. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), who talked about his nan. Before she got any support, a crisis point had already been reached. That
	was no good for her, and it is no good for taxpayers. More than one in five carers who have been admitted to hospital as an emergency case in the last three years say that it could have been prevented, had they been helped to look after their own health, or been given a break from caring or other forms of support. Given that money is so tight across the NHS and council care services, we have to get those up-front preventive services and support in place.
	I have another practical suggestion for the Minister. As he knows, there is a brilliant national GP patient survey, run by Ipsos MORI, which provides detailed information about the needs of patients registered at a surgery. The last time I looked through it, I do not think there were any questions about whether the respondent was a family carer. It was about the needs of the individual patients, not carers. Such a question would provide us with some brilliant data that could be given back to individual surgeries as the basis from which to start developing support.

Norman Lamb: The GP survey is absolutely something that we can consider. If we can demonstrate how individual surgeries are performing against their responsibilities towards the whole family, and not just towards the person who is receiving medical treatment, we might well drive changes of behaviour in the surgery.

Liz Kendall: I am very pleased to hear that from the Minister and I will continue to follow it up with him. Including such questions in the survey would not cost any more and the data are collected by individual practice, so we would all be able to look at the GP surgery data in our own constituencies and ask what action plans were being followed. Clinical commissioning groups could be required to follow that up.
	The third issue that many hon. Members have talked about is helping carers to stay in paid work. Families need the income carers get from paid work and our economy needs the skills and talents of carers. That challenge will only increase as our population ages and as more people live for longer and have to care for longer.
	The biggest group of carers are people aged 50 to 65, many of whom still want and need to work. Many are women who, as hon. Members have said, are stretched at all ends. Some are looking after their children or grandchildren, or sometimes both, as well as caring for a frail partner or elderly relative and trying to hold down a job. To have one in three carers being forced to give up work or reduce their hours because the right services and support are not available does not make sense for our economy as a whole. The right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam talked about the LSE and Age UK research that shows that that is costing more than £5 billion a year in lost tax revenues and increased benefit bills.
	I strongly urge the Minister to talk to his colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills about how the Government can do more to promote flexible working among family carers. We have made great progress in arguing that child care is part of our economic infrastructure, and, as the population ages, social care must be too. I believe that from cradle to grave, child care and social care must be the twin pillars of a reformed welfare state.
	In conclusion, the draft Care and Support Bill is an important step forward and is very welcome. It builds on the recommendations of the Law Commission’s review into adult social care legislation, established and initiated under the previous Labour Government. Indeed, many of its recommendations were set out in our White Paper on social care, produced just before the general election. On its own, however, the Bill will not be enough.
	Rights in law simply will not be delivered on the ground if the services are not available locally to make them a reality. Local council budgets for adult social care have been under pressure for many years, but they are now at crisis point as council budgets have been cut by a third under this Government. The Local Government Association says that councils have had to reduce their adult social care budgets by £2.7 billion over the past three years—that is a staggering 20%. The LGA says that
	“eligibility thresholds cannot be raised much higher, 87% of councils are now at the substantial/critical threshold”.
	That affects not just the statutory services, but the voluntary organisations that several hon. Members have rightly championed. Cuts from Leicestershire county council mean that CLASP carers centre in Leicester wonders whether it will even be able to survive. Many Members have talked about the important role of the voluntary sector, but without state funding many such organisations will not exist in future.
	Will the Minister back calls from Opposition Ministers for £1.2 billion of this year’s NHS underspend, handed back to the Treasury in March, to be given to social care to ease the short-term funding crisis over the next two years? What representations has he made to the Chancellor on council care budgets for the spending review? Has his Department made the clear economic and social justice cases for preventing them from being slashed further? If any NHS funds are to be transferred to local councils in next week’s spending review, will they be specifically ring-fenced so that money gets through to the front line?
	Ultimately, we need a bigger and bolder response to meet the needs of our ageing population and to help Britain’s carers. We need a fully integrated NHS and social care system with one budget. We should take the £15 billion spent on social care and the more than £100 billion spent on the NHS and join them together so that we get better care and better value for money for taxpayers. I believe that that is what Britain’s carers deserve.

Norman Lamb: I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), for her thoughtful speech, much of which I agreed with. This has been a thoughtful debate in which many good points have been made and I thank Members for raising this very important issue. Many Members who have taken part in the debate have been long-standing advocates for carers and I welcome their interest and commitment. I completely understand why various Members constantly pursue issues such as those to do with young carers and will not accept my determination to help with that problem until it is dealt with. I accept that that is their role and it
	is their right to do so. The debate has been a good one and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) for securing it, together with his colleagues, and for all the work and championing he has done over the years for carers.
	Let me make a preliminary point. Some of the Opposition speeches, including that made by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), focused on the difficult financial circumstances for local government, the impact of welfare reforms and so on. We could have a partisan battle about the issues, condemning the Government and so on. However, the shadow Minister recognised at the start of her speech the scale of the challenge we face, not just today but in the future. The numbers of people growing older with care needs, often with multiple conditions and a mix of mental and physical health needs, just keep growing. If we are all honest, both in this Chamber and with the public outside, we must admit that any Government of any political persuasion would face this challenge.
	There is no easy solution. We cannot just find a magic pot of money to throw at the problem. There is an obligation on us all, as the shadow Minister made clear, to find ways of using the money we have available much more effectively than we do. We know that there is massive waste in the system because of the care silos—between health and social care, between mental and physical health and between general practice and secondary care. There is an absolute obligation on us all to engage in a debate about using money more effectively to achieve better care and support for people and to ensure that the system remains sustainable. I want to ensure that we elevate the debate by recognising the challenges we face.
	The speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) was, I think, really valuable. Ultimately, we need collaboration among statutory services, which should not abandon their responsibilities, the voluntary sector and, crucially, people—that is, the community, families, neighbours and friends. We need to unleash particularly the power of the many people who have entered retirement fit and healthy and want to give something back, but often do not know how to do so. An army of people out there are able and willing to help to meet the enormous challenges. Some of the schemes that my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth alluded to in her county are happening in many parts of the country, and they point us to a better future—a more caring future, where community strength is rebuilt.
	I wish to join everyone else in this debate in paying tribute to the extraordinary work that carers do, giving of themselves; it is self-sacrifice, and they get no plaudits from anywhere else. They are just committing to helping someone they love, often doing so in challenging and troubling circumstances, particularly where dementia is concerned, as the loss of recognition can be very distressing for a loved one. We also know that many carers are themselves frail, struggling to cope on their own. My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) mentioned the challenges in rural areas. My constituency of North Norfolk contains many elderly people who are often living in isolated communities and are struggling to get access to the services they need. We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the work of every carer
	in our community. As we have identified in this debate, without carers the cost to the public purse would be enormous.
	I therefore very much welcome this debate, coming, as it does, immediately after carers week. It gives us the opportunity to discuss how carers of all ages can be properly supported in their role and helped to have a better quality of life. That is what we should be focusing on: putting quality of life and well-being at the heart of the Care Bill. We should not be thinking about what service we deliver to passive recipients; we should always be thinking, “How do we make your life better? How do we make you happier in your life? What might you, as an older person, be able to offer to other people?” It should be about that, rather than about these people sensing that they have nothing more to offer and just facing dependency as they move towards the end of their life in a rather distressing way.
	Carers are central to the Government’s proposals for improving care and support. The Care Bill, currently being discussed in another place, puts carers on the same footing as those for whom they care. We propose to simplify the assessment process for adult carers by extending their right to an assessment. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) made an absolute point: people need simplicity and they must not be faced with bureaucratic jungles to fight their way through. Our simplified procedures will consider the impact of caring responsibilities on the carer in order to help them to lead as independent a life as possible. We intend to remove the requirement that a carer must be providing
	“a substantial amount of care on a regular basis”—
	that is the test—in order to be entitled to an assessment. That will mean that many more carers—in essence, all carers—will be able to access an assessment. In addition, the Care Bill seeks to place a new duty on councils to meet carers’ eligible needs for support. Those measures will be underpinned by a Department of Health commitment to provide new resources for carer assessment and support, rising to £175 million per annum by 2020.

Barbara Keeley: Has the Minister really taken on board the message that has come from my colleagues in this debate, which is that assessment is not always the answer? A lot of carers do not go near local authorities and are not likely to know of, hear of or ask for an assessment. The people they are in contact with are GPs, doctors and nurses, so there must be much more onus on the NHS and its staff to undertake the task of identifying carers at the earliest stage and ensuring that they get information, advice and support.

Norman Lamb: The hon. Lady asks whether I have taken that message on board—I could not have missed it. I totally agree with what has been said and I am going to discuss the role of health professionals.
	I know that there is a lot of concern about young carers, and it comes particularly from the hon. Lady. I said in the Queen’s Speech debate that I would meet the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson),
	who has responsibility for children and families, and I have done so. I appreciate that until something concrete happens the hon. Lady will, rightly, keep pressing. I give her my assurance, again, that I understand and accept the case she is making. The hon. Friend the Minister and I are entirely clear that our joint aim is to ensure that young people are protected from having to undertake excessive and inappropriate caring responsibilities. During debates on the Children and Families Bill, he confirmed that he and I are of one mind on the need to protect young carers by using a whole-family approach to the assessment of adult care needs.
	The Care Bill itself is not the place to go into the detail of how assessments should be conducted; that will be set out in regulations and statutory guidance. A whole-family approach will undoubtedly benefit children, but I am keen that it also encompasses other significant family relationships. We need to look genuinely at the whole family, whatever the relationships are between those receiving care and those giving it.
	In last week’s debate, my hon. Friend the Minister confirmed that his Department will look at what it can do to remove any legal barriers preventing young carers and their families from receiving the support they need, and how we can ensure that children’s legislation works with adult legislation to support the whole family. I am clear that we have to address the concerns, and while we significantly advance the position of adult carers, we cannot leave young carers behind. The approaches do need to be different, because we need to recognise philosophically that children should not be caring inappropriately. Of course sometimes they have to do that, but we want to relieve the caring burden as far as is possible, while recognising that sometimes there will be a caring role for some.

Liz Kendall: Does that mean that there will be a requirement on schools, and on further and higher education bodies, specifically to identify young carers?

Norman Lamb: It is not my job to speak on behalf of the Department for Education, and the hon. Lady will have to be a bit more patient in waiting for further news on that subject.
	Key principles to inform that work and discussion over the summer are, first, that the starting point should be assessing the needs of the adult or child who needs care and then seeing what remaining needs for support a young carer in the family has. The presence of a young carer should trigger either an assessment or the offer of an assessment to the person needing care. Secondly, a whole-family assessment is key when assessing an adult needing care where children in the family are providing care to the adult or undertaking wider family responsibilities. The adult’s assessment and eligibility for support should take into account their parenting responsibilities and the functioning of the family. Thirdly, assessments should establish why a child is caring and how to prevent—this is the crucial point—excessive or inappropriate caring responsibilities which could have an adverse impact on their education, social activities, emotional development or health. As much as possible we ought to be enabling a youngster to grow up like any other youngster can, without having inappropriate burdens on them that impact on their education and social life.

Paul Burstow: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government will be publishing amendments to give effect to this within the next week or two? Will he set out the timetable? Will the Government also address the other gap, which is the one regarding parents who are caring for disabled children? We need to make sure that none of those who have caring responsibilities get left behind.

Norman Lamb: I cannot give my right hon. Friend a specific time scale for what might happen—he needs to watch this space, and I am sure he will. On the question of parent carers, the view of my hon. Friend the children’s Minister is that there is sufficient provision under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 to provide for the assessment and support of disabled children and their parents. In addition, special educational needs reforms in the Children and Families Bill will give parents more choice in and control over the support they and their children receive.

Ian Mearns: It is a sad fact of life, though, that when a social worker visits the home of someone who needs care, they go with that client in mind. If a child in the household is caring for that adult, for example, but the social worker focuses on the adult client, all too often the social worker does not think to cross-reference the child’s needs with colleagues in the social work department.

Norman Lamb: I completely agree. That is why the whole-family approach is so important. When dealing with the care needs of one individual, we need to look at the impact of those care needs on the whole family.

Grahame Morris: rose—

Norman Lamb: I will give way, but I then need to reach the end of my speech.

Grahame Morris: I am grateful, and I compliment the Minister on his response. Does he recognise that, particularly in relation to young carers, it is quite right to place additional duties and responsibilities on local authorities, but local authorities must be given sufficient resources to discharge those additional duties and responsibilities?

Norman Lamb: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present when I said that we need to be much smarter about how we use the money available. One of the things we need to do—I think there is a degree of agreement here—is integrate health and care. It is a crazy silo situation that we face. We are not using the money effectively. We could achieve much better support if we combined the disparate parts of the system to provide support shaped around the needs of the individual and their family.
	The last spending round provided local government with a challenging settlement. That is why we decided to provide extra funding to help local authorities maintain access to services. However, local authorities ultimately have discretion over how they use their resources. Improving care and support is not simply a case of more money. Local authorities must look at how they can transform care through innovation and new ways of working. As I said earlier, collaboration with the voluntary sector is critical to this. Many local authorities are successfully
	integrating health and care services to improve quality, and we are developing the concept of “pioneers” to act as exemplars to support the rapid dissemination and uptake of lessons learned across the country.
	Some hon. Members talked about the role of doctors and other health care workers. I agree that much more needs to be done. We can look at incentives such as the GP survey mentioned in the exchange that I had with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Leicester West, and we have provided funding for the Royal College of General Practitioners and others to encourage GPs to think about the role of carers, but what we see from examples around the country, such as Changing Lives in Cornwall, is that once GPs start to collaborate and work as a partnership—as a team—with carers and the family, they begin to see that their burden is relieved because others can help them in the role that they have to perform. That is the essential change that it is so important to achieve.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam referred to the £400 million funding over four years for carers’ breaks. It is deeply frustrating that that has not been used as intended in all parts of the country. There are some areas, including Surrey and many others, which have done good, innovative things as a result of that. The Department asked the policy research unit in economic evaluation in health and care intervention to conduct a survey of a number of PCTs to gain their views on the benefits of NHS support for carers’ breaks. The findings will be published shortly and will help inform our understanding of what has happened. The early indications are that there may be more good things happening than we sometimes recognise, but clearly there have been significant gaps and much more needs to be done.
	I appreciate that time is almost up. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend and many others about the importance of work. I make the point again that if employers can recognise that providing help and assistance to enable people to remain in work is in their own self-interest as they maintain the skills in the work force while enabling that person to continue their caring responsibilities.
	This has been a good debate. There has been some informed discussion and I am very grateful to hon. Members for their contributions.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Paul Burstow. We have about 40 seconds.

Paul Burstow: In that case, I shall be very brief indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, and simply thank all those who contributed to this debate, ask the Minister to write to all Members who have taken part in the debate about the issues that he did not have time to address, and underscore the fact that this debate recognises the invaluable work of carers and the fact that they are the backbone of our care system. Without them we would not have a health and social care system worth its name. We owe them a great debt, and as a result of that debt we must strive to do more.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered the matter of carers.

East Coast Main Line Franchise

Sheila Gilmore: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of the east coast main line franchise.
	I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us this debate. When I spoke to the Committee in support of the debate, I acknowledged that we had a 90-minute Westminster Hall debate on the subject on 5 June which was led by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), but on that occasion there was great demand to speak. Many Members were limited to interventions. More importantly, there were many issues which the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) did not address in his response. I intend to make that the focus of my speech today.
	I declare a family interest in the railways. My grandfather was a railwayman and I am sure he would be delighted to see me here today speaking up for the railways. Of course, he was a railwayman in the pre-British Rail days, let alone the post-British Rail days. In fact—this will probably give away my age—he was working on the railways in the first world war in what was then a reserved occupation. He recalled being approached occasionally by people with white feathers because he was not fighting. He worked in the railways after the war when it became British Rail, and as a long-term railwayman he would have been proud to see British Rail and to see that the railways are still such an important element in our transport system. At various times in the past 50 or 60 years there have been suggestions that railways were the past and we would move beyond railways, but here in the 21st century it is true to say that railways are back as a hugely important part of our future, not just of our nostalgic past. It is therefore particularly important that we get it right for the next 50 years.
	The other interest that I have to declare is as a frequent traveller on the east coast main line, spending nearly 10 hours a week travelling on that line when Parliament is sitting. Since I started that regular commute, I have been extremely impressed with the service provided by the current operator. That is not to say that it is perfect. I do not think any provider would have been able to tackle, for instance, the day that the line was completely flooded north of Newcastle, when I ended up having to spend the night in Newcastle. I do not believe that even a private operator could have held back the waves of water that fell on the Newcastle area that night, and I know that several Members present experienced that personally.
	I was perplexed when, following the fiasco of the west coast main line refranchising, the Government’s new schedule of competitions prioritised getting East Coast out of the door by February 2015, three months before the next general election. Some cynics have suggested that what motivated that proposal and the timing of it was the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), our shadow spokesperson on transport, had been raising the issue and challenging the Government on the proposals, given what had happened with the west coast main line. The
	next thing we heard was that the Government were to refranchise East Coast within a very short time scale. That was to be done at the expense of giving extensions to two other long-distance operators—Virgin on the west coast and First on Great Western—because the investigation into the franchising fiasco suggested that not more than one main line franchise should be dealt with at one time. Even on that basis, though, why the east coast line and not one of the other lines? It makes no sense to reprivatise a successful public sector operator while neglecting the other services.

Stewart Jackson: I am following the hon. Lady’s speech with great interest, but I always think it better to focus on cock-up in politics, rather than conspiracy. In that respect, would she like to explain why, on 21 January 2010, under a Labour Government, the Department for Transport consultation on franchising made a commitment from her party to reprivatise the east coast main line?

Sheila Gilmore: I am glad the hon. Gentleman made that intervention, because it enables me to say that one of the most important things for all of us in politics is to experience, to look at the evidence, to learn and to come to a view based on that evidence. No doubt he would be interested to read an article published in The Northern Echo today in which Lord Adonis is reported as saying that, on the basis of that experience, his view is that the line should not be refranchised. If we could not learn from our experience and change our politics, it would be a sad thing indeed. I hope that, having heard that people who previously held that view have changed their mind, the present Government will be prepared to follow suit.

Hugh Bayley: As I happen to have the article from The Northern Echo in my hand, it might help if I read out what Lord Adonis says:
	“In the last four years, East Coast has established itself as one of the best train operating companies in the country, both operationally and commercially.
	This has fundamentally changed the situation and it is right and proper that East Coast should be allowed to continue as a public sector comparator to the existing private franchises.”

Sheila Gilmore: I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying the position. Perhaps for the rest of this debate, unlike the one in Westminster Hall, we will concentrate on the main issues before us and the reasons why the Government made the decision they have.
	In the Westminster Hall debate, a number of hon. Members questioned the Minister’s claim that East Coast’s performance had plateaued, noting the remarks the right hon. Gentleman made to the Select Committee on Transport on 24 April:
	“If you look at the latest monthly figures for reliability and punctuality, it is the worst of the 19 franchises.”
	That struck me as odd, because in my experience East Coast trains are, more often than not, on time. That was borne out in the debate, in which many speakers pointed out that the Minister was quoting figures from a narrow four-week period in which bad weather had caused flooding and brought down overhead wires. East Coast is powerless to prevent such incidents, and responsibility for subsequent delays lies with the infrastructure manager, Network Rail. In fact, according to the moving annual
	average punctuality figures, which offer a more balanced picture, East Coast is in the top three of the seven long-distance franchises.

Mark Lazarowicz: I congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour and those who signed the motion on securing the debate. Is it not worth pointing out that, over the decades, a consistent cause of delays has been problems with the overhead wires? Is she aware that one of the main reasons those problems have arisen is that, back in the ‘80s when the line was electrified under the previous Conservative Government, the overhead wires system was installed on the cheap? Ever since, we have suffered problems precisely because they did not do the good job they ought to have done.

Sheila Gilmore: Indeed. I am not saying, and I do not think any Opposition Member would say, that there is nothing that needs to be improved. Track and rolling stock can always be improved, and the current state of the track and overhead cables is a problem, but I would argue that it would be a problem for any operator. That is not what lies behind the Government’s proposal.
	There is also the question of the premium payments. Again, I quote the Minister, this time at Transport questions on 25 April, when he said that
	“the premium that the east coast main line pays to the Treasury is less than that paid by the west coast main line.”—[Official Report, 25 April 2013; Vol. 561, c. 995.]
	In fact, a recent report from the Office of Rail Regulation suggests that, in 2011-12, the Government received £156 million in net franchise payments from the operator of the west coast main line and £177 million from East Coast—the opposite of what the Minister asserted.

Stewart Jackson: The hon. Lady is making a typically eloquent speech, but does she not agree that it is apposite to mention, in the spirit of fairness and transparency, that the track access charges for National Express were significantly higher—£210 million, I understand, rather than the £92 million now charged to the operator?

Sheila Gilmore: I think the important thing to bear in mind is that the service is not failing in the ways the Minister said it was. If a Government propose a policy, it has to be based on the right evidence and not on an inaccurate interpretation of the situation.
	Let me now talk about what East Coast does with its profits. In the previous debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough pointed out that whereas private operators are obliged to pay dividends, public operators can reinvest all their profits back into the service, which in East Coast’s case has amounted to more £40 million since 2009. One of the criticisms that has been made in the past and might still be levelled now at a public operator is that, because the dead hand of bureaucracy lies on it, such an operator cannot be as efficient and as fleet of foot as a private sector operator, but it is true to say that East Coast is organisationally distinct from the Department for Transport. It is staffed by railway professionals and is therefore able to take the best of a private sector company in terms of efficiency, innovation and entrepreneurialism, but because it is in
	the public sector, any profits it makes are available to the Treasury and all of us as citizens of this country and taxpayers.
	I am concerned that talking down East Coast to justify the proposed refranchising will damage morale at the company. That is most unfair, because staff and management have worked extremely hard and achieved good results, with 1 million extra passengers carried in 2012 compared with 2009 and record passenger satisfaction. I hope that, when he responds to the debate, the Minister will correct his remarks on punctuality and premium payments; acknowledge that East Coast reinvests all its profits and can emulate private sector efficiency; and congratulate staff and management on East Coast’s success. I think that that will be an important message to send back to the work force.
	Given East Coast’s success, it makes no sense to prioritise its reprivatisation while other long-distance operators are being offered long extensions. Under the Government’s initial franchising timetable, the new west coast main line contract was due to start in October 2012. Under the new timetable, and as a result of prioritising East Coast, the current operator of the west coast main line, Virgin, will be offered a total of four and half years of extensions up to April 2017. Similarly, for the new Great Western contract, which was meant to start in April this year, the operator, First Group, is being offered three years of extensions up to July 2016.
	Let us look again at another reason the Minister gave for prioritising the east coast main line over others. He said that the line
	“connects industries in the north with commerce in the south, provides cross-border services to Scotland and helps to drive the development of tourism and the success of Edinburgh and Leeds as key financial centres outside London. That is why it is at the forefront of our new rail franchising programme”.—[Official Report, 5 June 2013; Vol. 563, c. 252WH.]
	I accept all those things, although many of them can be said about other rail lines.
	It is important for business that we have a good, strong railway service on the east coast main line. I am regularly accompanied on my weekly commute by an increasing number of business travellers, many of whom work in my city’s sizeable banking sector. Those people have often been attracted away from short-haul flights by East Coast’s excellent new first class offer, which in the long term could benefit our environment. Business travellers are also attracted by the new services that have been introduced, including a later evening service and an earlier morning service, which enable people who want, or have, to travel to London for business meetings to do so by rail in a way that was not possible before.
	However, the west coast main line and the Great Western line are also important for business. The west coast main line connects five of the seven largest conurbations in Britain, and Great Western serves Bristol, Cardiff and the prosperous Thames valley, so the claim that the Government have decided to prioritise the east coast main line because of its importance to business does not really stack up. At least, it is not a reason for prioritising the east coast main line over the other services that were previously due for refranchising.
	By deferring proper franchise competition on these other lines in favour of extensions, the damage done to business on those routes could well outweigh any benefit accrued by prioritising the reprivatisation of the east
	coast main line, because extending those franchises involves little or no competition. It is likely to cost franchises a lot while failing to deliver any improvements in service.
	It also leaves the Government in a weak bargaining position with the franchise operators by offering them those franchises without competition. After all, one of the reasons the Government would no doubt give for wanting to franchise is to have competition that would drive innovation and improvement. However, as far as the other lines are concerned, it is more or less a case of giving the operators an extension.
	The only bargaining chip that the Government appear to have is to call in East Coast’s parent company, Directly Operated Railways, presumably as some kind of threat to the franchise operator, so that if it does not settle for a reasonable sum the line might be given over to Directly Operated Railways. That seems rather odd, from a Government who are telling us that they do not want rail lines to be operated in that way.

Alan Reid: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Lady’s argument, but I am afraid that I have lost the thread a bit. Will she clarify whether she is opposed to the refranchising of the east coast main line in principle, or does she simply want it to be held back for a certain length of time so that other franchises can be retendered, which is what she seems to be arguing for?

Sheila Gilmore: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We did say that the hon. Lady would speak for 10 to 15 minutes, but she has now been going for 19, and it looks like she still has a ream of paper to get through. I feel sure that she will be coming to the end shortly.

Sheila Gilmore: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	I would certainly argue for keeping East Coast in public ownership. The point I am trying to make is that even in terms of the Government’s justification for what they are doing and their timetable, it does not make financial sense. Therefore, it will not make financial sense for the effectiveness of this country’s railways, or indeed for our financial position. That is an important point. It raises the question of why the east coast main line is being refranchised at this point.
	If the Government’s decision had been based purely on a view that East Coast had been performing badly in the public sector, which I know has been said—I hope I have show that it is not the case—it might have been an imperative for turning East Coast around, but that is not the point. I think that we have to ask, yet again, why this is happening. Why should we take a service that is performing well and put it out to franchise, with all the disruption that will cause, and potentially for no gain?
	I hope that the Minister will address some of the key points that I have already raised but that were not fully addressed the last time we debated it—punctuality, premium payment and the success of East Coast—because I am sure that he would not want to be accused of putting ideology ahead of the interests of passengers and taxpayers.

Stewart Jackson: I speak not only as the representative of the fine railway town of Peterborough, but as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which has looked at different aspects of rail travel in recent years, including most recently the west coast main line franchising process, and as a commuter. Like the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), I travel frequently, although I am not always as familiar with the timetables as I should be. One Wednesday a few weeks ago I was running very fast through the brand spanking new, recently refurbished King’s Cross station in order to catch the 8 o’clock train. I clambered on board only to find after it departed that it was a fast service to York. I passed various Labour MPs in first class, while holding my standard ticket in hand, and then saw my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy). He asked what I was going to do, and I said I would have to get off at York and go back to Peterborough. With typical sympathy and pithy Yorkshire wit, he said, “I hope you’ve written to me to say you’re going to be in my constituency”—although I think it was probably the constituency of the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) that I was visiting.
	This debate gives us an opportunity to look specifically at the major infrastructure challenges facing the east coast main line. I will focus not on a sterile argument about private being bad and public being good, but on the challenges and opportunities we face in looking at public policy on that line. In the past 10 years we have seen a 43% rise in passenger demand. By 2031 there will be a capacity gap of 1,500 seats in the busiest morning hour on suburban services into King’s Cross. Indeed, journeys from Peterborough and Cambridge are expected to rise by as much as 20% by 2016. I think it is fair to say that, irrespective of our party or our views on the debate about rail privatisation, we all have a common interest, on behalf of our constituents who commute, whether from Scotland, Yorkshire or Cambridgeshire, in safer, cleaner and more punctual trains and in value for money.
	It would be unfair and churlish not to concede the progress we have seen in Peterborough. New work has begun and is due to be completed next year. We have three new platforms and platform extensions for the new Thameslink trains and the new inter-city trains. We have a new island platform and a new freight loop. The station has been remodelled over the past few years, and we have 150 new, safe and secure cycle racks to help to develop Peterborough as a local transport infrastructure hub.
	It is vital that I make the point that Peterborough is dependent on the railway. Indeed, it is integral to the financial and economic viability of my constituency, given that it is 47 minutes away from central London and King’s Cross. I was delighted to welcome the Minister to Peterborough station last autumn to open, with Network Rail, the reconfigured, remodelled station.
	We have to concentrate on value for money, which is a very important issue in the private-public debate. An East Coast train season ticket costs my constituents £6,888 a year—£7,472 with a travel card—which is about 25% of the average annual salary in Peterborough. A First Capital Connect season ticket costs £5,800 a year and £7,000 with a travel card.
	Putting partisanship aside, the current provider of the service has done a good job, and I think that the Minister and the Secretary of State have conceded as much. It would be unfair not to concede that it has returned £640 million to the Exchequer by way of premiums since 2009—£187 million in the last financial year. The staff on East Coast trains at Peterborough do a superb job and I know many of them. They are hard-working, decent people with a public sector ethos and a commitment to doing a very good job. I am very proud that we have people who do that, even when the things that go wrong are not their fault, but that of Network Rail. They always smile and try to explain what has happened.
	Nevertheless, the situation is not perfect. It is only fair to say that East Coast is the worst performing train company in terms of punctuality. [Hon. Members: “No!] It is true. Only 82.8% of East Coast services arrived on time in the period up to 31 March 2013, compared with 97% of services provided by c2c, which is owned by National Express and is the best performing train operating company. Hon. Members may groan, but those are the facts and we have to agree on them in order to improve the service.

Hugh Bayley: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government’s official timing period does not pick one month or two months as he has done, but considers the situation over one year, and over one year East Coast has performed substantially better than the operator on the west coast, which is the best comparator.

Stewart Jackson: I think that is semantics. I made it clear that I was talking about the 12 months to 31 March 2013. If the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me to take issue with me, that is fine.

Andrew McDonald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stewart Jackson: No, I want to make some progress, but I will give way later to the hon. Gentleman, whom I know has a special interest in the subject.
	The Labour Government accepted that public service provision by this train operating company was always going to be a short-term expedient because of a special set of circumstances on the east coast main line. As the Minister has said, in order to leverage key, private sector capital, it is important that we have a new, long-term private partner to innovate and drive up standards on the east coast main line.
	It is all very well for Lord Adonis to have a road-to-Damascus conversion. Obviously, being in opposition concentrates one’s mind, but when he was a Minister he spoke out strongly for private sector provision on this particular line. I challenge the Labour party: is its policy now wholesale renationalisation of the railways, or is that just for the east coast main line? I know that the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) would definitely give me a clear answer, but I am not sure that he and the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) would have a meeting of minds on the issue.

Grahame Morris: The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. Although he is ridiculing us on the Labour Benches for supporting
	the concept of public ownership, most of the travelling public—70% of them—and even those of them who vote Conservative, support the idea of renationalising the railway industry.

Stewart Jackson: If it is such a popular idea, why has the hon. Gentleman’s party not put it in its manifesto? Why in 13 years did it not repeal the Railways Act 1993 and go back to the good old days of British Rail, which did not get us to our destination very often or on time?

Ian Mearns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stewart Jackson: Let me make some progress and I will give way to the hon. Gentleman shortly.
	The Labour party has to bear some responsibility for the series of events that culminated in the current situation. As in so many areas, this Government are having to tackle that legacy. The Labour Government should have been more flexible with Sea Containers and Great North Eastern Railway, which was a very popular provider: it had good staff, good management and was well liked. Obviously, it was undermined—this was out of its control—by the parlous financial situation of Sea Containers, but the previous Labour Government was pretty inflexible and allowed National Express to overbid hugely and deliver a poor level of service. I think that the National Express management team is pretty hopeless. In fairness, the Labour Government did not have much chance or choice to do anything differently at that stage. Nevertheless, unless Labour gives an unambiguous commitment to renationalisation across the network, old Labour hon. Gentlemen will be whistling in the wind.

Ian Mearns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stewart Jackson: No, I must make some progress, because Mr Deputy Speaker will reproach me otherwise.
	It is worth mentioning that, in terms of premium, National Express paid £338 million to the Treasury between 2007 and 2010. It was not a basket case. It ran into difficulties as a direct result of the economic crisis and the less than benign economic circumstances, but it did pay in. As I have already told the hon. Member for Edinburgh East, the track access charges were significantly higher for National Express than they are for the current company.
	I welcome the improvements in control period 4, which covers 2009 to 2014, including the new platform 0 at King’s Cross, the junction remodelling and in particular the removal of the major bottlenecks between Huntingdon and Peterborough and the overall budget of £240 million. I think we all welcome the new inter-city express trains, extra seats and the replacement of the slam-door rolling stock, which will come on stream in due course.
	I am a fair-minded person, so I will admit that there have been mistakes in the franchising process. I challenged the Secretary of State about this in Transport questions a few months ago and the Public Accounts Committee looked at the issue, specifically on the west coast main line, in February and identified some key things. There was a failure to follow due procedures and, essentially, a failure of culture. There were Chinese walls between the permanent secretary and the franchise and procurement
	teams, which seemed strange and is unusual in the civil service. There was also a failure of oversight, with no one person being in charge of oversight and having responsibility for the franchising process from beginning to end.
	In July 2011, the Public Accounts Committee published a report on Network Rail. Network Rail is an integral part of any debate about the east coast main line and its future. The Committee found that Network Rail was still less efficient than comparator organisations in Europe, but it did not know why. The Committee also found that the system of penalties and bonuses that were meant to drive improvements in efficiency were not doing so. Because it is an overly complex industry, the risk of poor value for money and inefficiency is endemic. Those were the key lessons of the PAC report.
	There is a need to impose clear objectives on train operating companies to avoid overcrowding, or bear the costs of overcrowding. I am not convinced that the Department for Transport has addressed that important issue adequately. We need more clarity on the link between fares and new passenger places and on the balance of costs between the taxpayer and the passenger.
	In its contribution to the debate about franchising, through the Brown report and the McNulty report, Passenger Focus has suggested some simple things that would improve the passenger experience, including right time performance information; better ticket information; making restrictions simpler and more apparent on ticket machines; and having performance indicators for the line of route and not just for the franchise as a whole. Those are simple things, but they would make the experience of our constituents who travel to the north of England, Scotland or London much better.
	I will finish my remarks by talking a little about competition and open access. I welcome the consultation paper that was published this month, “On-rail competition: Consultation on options for change in open access”. Open access is an important issue that we need to look at. The east coast main line is a good example of open access. It has brought significant benefits to parts of the network. Only a small part of the passenger rail network is open to competitive pressures. On the east coast main line, two non-subsidised open access operators, Grand Central Trains and First Hull Trains, compete with the franchiser. They have shown that competition leads to more journeys, higher revenues for the train companies, lower fares, and more and happier passengers.
	The Centre for Policy Studies publication in March showed that passenger journeys increased by 42% at stations that enjoy rail competition, compared with 27% at those without it; that revenue increased by 57% at those with competition, against 48% at those without it; and that average fares increased by only 11% at stations with competition, compared with 17% at stations without it. So the franchise holder faces competition and still pays an increased premium to the Government, as East Coast has done. Open access competition has led to more routes and more high-speed access to new locations, including in London.
	As a one nation Conservative—I suppose we are all one nation now, whether one nation Labour or one nation Conservative—I think that it is important that we have good transport infrastructure to places such as
	Sunderland, Hartlepool, Halifax, Hull and Bradford. All those places have seen a significant boost to their economic footprint and their direct access to markets. In the course of the public consultation on open access, we need to consider the benefits to local economies and, ultimately, to the taxpayer. Hitherto, the Office of Rail Regulation and the Department for Transport have set their face against open access and have been inflexible in the design of the franchise regime.
	In conclusion, 20 years on from the Railways Act 1993, I believe that privatisation has been a success. Labour will not reverse it in government if it wins the next general election. The review of the franchise regime gives the industry an opportunity to facilitate more competition, more investment in our railways, more choice, and greater value for money and efficiency for our constituents. Ministers should seize this chance while they can.

Ronnie Campbell: I understand there was a good debate in Westminster Hall—it is a pity I missed it. I had to be away, but I am here today, and if the Minister cannot understand Geordie I will try to speak in plain English—he does not seem to be listening to anybody on the Geordie side anyway. I will be very slow so that he can understand exactly what I am saying.
	My hon. Friend—he is a friend of mine and I have known him for a long time in the House—the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) made some valid points at the beginning of his contribution, but he got a bit sluggish. I want to get to the bones of the issue. I will not go on, because I know other Members want to speak, but we must get to the bones of this, and we have to know why.
	If we look back, Great North Eastern Railway was a good firm; it tried but got unstuck with that container thing and there was a bit of a mess, but in all fairness it walked away, threw the keys on the line and another private company went off the rails with the north east rail link. Then we had National Express, which was hopeless. It should have stuck with what it is good at, although I do not think it is very good at driving buses either. It came in and made a right mess of things.
	All we have to do—I do not know whether the Minister knows this, but we do—is talk to the workers on the trains. They will say which the bad company was: National Express. The workers are happy now. Last week they told me that they are happy with the not-for-profit system. I will not say nationalisation—I wouldn’t dare!—it is a not-for-profit company. They are happy. I said, “Don’t say that. If the Minister hears you’re happy, that’ll be the excuse he wants to privatise it. You canna have workers being happy, can we? Even the management is happy, and we canna have them being happy neither.” So I told the workers not to say they were happy too regularly, as that will be an excuse for the Tories to do it in—[Interruption.] The Minister may laugh, but let us put the facts down. National Express lost the taxpayer £55 million. I am not sure of the figure for GNER, but I am sure it was some—I do not know what it was, but it was taxpayers’ money.
	Week after week I hear the Tories come to the Dispatch Box and start talking about how they are the custodians of the taxpayer. “We believe in the taxpayer. We are
	here to save them money.” Well, I have to laugh. We now have a not-for-profit company that has made the taxpayer £600 million in four years and invested £40 million in itself. What is wrong with making a profit and putting it back into the Treasury coffers for the taxpayer? The Government are the custodians of the taxpayer and are saving them money by cutting welfare, hospitals, legal aid and everything else—that is what they tell everybody in the newspapers and on television. The Government are saving the taxpayer. There are also the tax alliance people, the hidden people, who I think are backed by the Tories—the tax alliance party, or whatever it is. [Hon. Members: “The TaxPayers Alliance”] The TaxPayers Alliance. I have not heard a squeak out of it yet. I have never heard it say, “Oh wait a minute. The taxpayer is getting money back, and the Treasury fund this company. This must be good for taxpayers.” No, it is keeping very quiet. I wonder why.
	My second point is about why we want to privatise a not-for-profit company that is doing very well. I have an idea—actually, I have a few ideas. My mind works in funny ways. I know the Tory party slush bucket is going around somewhere and I wonder who is contributing to it. I would like to try to find out, get my sniffer dogs on it and look to see who is putting into the Tory slush bucket. We will find out later, when the names come out, who will get the franchise—[Interruption.] Well, I will put my money on now, and I bet it is Goody Two-Shoes. I bet he gets the franchise.

Hon. Members: Who’s Goody Two-Shoes?

Ronnie Campbell: He’s Branson, that’s who. He’ll be the man who puts the money in the slush bucket, and he’ll be the man who the Tories get to run north-east rail. That is a fact, and I hope that people will remember what I have said.
	As I have said before, the company has contributed £600 million to the taxpayer, to the Treasury. Its subsidy from the taxpayer was 1% for various items and things it did on the east coast main line, as against the west coast main line, which gets a subsidy of 37%. Hon. Members can see the difference, and perhaps they can see why Branson might have an eye on the east coast main line, because although he made a mess of the west coast main line, the Tories made a mess of the franchise for him, so they had to give it to him again. He will have his eye on this company and he will want to run it to get that money.
	When something is privatised, the money has got to go somewhere. The company makes money. It has shown how to run a rail link, and it has shown companies how to do it, and I am sure Branson knows that, and he will be saying, “Ooh, there’s £600,000. My shareholders are going to be very happy. Instead of that money going to the Treasury, it could go to the shareholders in business.” I can see how he is thinking and I can see how the Tories are thinking. They are saying, “Hey, we’ve got a company here making money for the taxpayer. It should be the shareholders getting the dividends and the managers getting massive bonuses.” I can see them coming in with their massive bonuses and the money just draining away, and they’ll most probably throw the keys on the line again and say, “Sorry, we’ve made a mess of this. We took too much money out. You’ll have to get the taxpayer to bail it out again, with another not-for-profit
	company.” I expect that to happen in a few years. I’ll most probably not be here, but never mind—I’ll be watching from my granddad seat.
	The Minister has got to be listening carefully to what the people are saying. This is important. We hear what they are saying, and they are saying they want the company to remain as it is. They are satisfied with the line. I travel on it every week, like most other Members from the north-east of England and Scotland, and it is a very good line. It is always on time. Very rarely, there will be a couple of minutes here, a couple of minutes there, and of course sometimes something happens on the line, as happens on all rail lines—a tree might fall down or a line might go down. It happens from time to time. Those things cannot be helped. But what is more important is that the workers are very happy, the company is doing well and contributing, and I think it is an absolute disgrace if we give this back to the private entrepreneurs, who, let’s face it, made a mess of it in the first place.

Andrew Jones: A couple of weeks ago at Transport Question Time I asked about the timetable for the re-letting of the franchise, and I received a clear, extremely positive answer. I was told it would not be long before the franchise was let again.
	I want to talk about two areas: public—or not public—ownership, and the franchise itself. Perhaps unusually among my colleagues, I was against the privatisation of our railways, not because I had a fond memory of British Rail. I used to catch the train to school in Bradford every day, and it was not a pleasant experience. Parts of British Rail were good, but parts of it were not, and overall the customer experience was poor. I remember an advertising campaign at the time saying, “We’re getting there.” It was launched to general ridicule from the public, who obviously knew better. It was not because I thought there was an important principle between public and private ownership. Across the world, we can see examples of successful railways in both public and private ownership. I simply thought it would be hard to bring in effective competition.
	When it came to managing our railways, there was a sense that we were managing decline, and in many ways of course we were: customers were choosing other modes of travel. I have checked the data on this. I am sure the Minister will be aware, but I might take the opportunity to remind him that when our railways were nationalised—I am talking not about one year’s or one month’s comparison, but about decades of data—more than 1,200 million annual journeys were made each year, and by the time of privatisation, that figure had declined steadily, year on year, to 700 million. There were a series of huge declines and the data were bad, however we look at them.
	I changed my mind about rail privatisation for two reasons, the first being passenger growth. Again, it is slightly geeky, but I will remind the Minister of the data. Since privatisation, passenger numbers have gone from 700 million to 1,300 million-plus, which is a fantastic change. Level of usage on the rail network is now comparable with that in the 1920s. Privatisation saw a change of decades of usage, which was a good thing.
	I want to encourage more use of public transport, with more freight off the roads. The second reason I changed my mind was personal experience. While travelling around the country, I could see a steady change of attitude in the businesses towards being more focused on their customers—improving customer experience and developing new services and timetables. The customer became more central to the industry.
	I agree with many of the comments made by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the quality and friendliness of the East Coast staff, which is absolutely first class. I use it, as I am sure do all the speakers in this debate.

Grahame Morris: You don’t use first class, though, do you?

Andrew Jones: No, I do not use first class—the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Extreme caution is required for any Member using first class, and I do not risk it.
	The question is not whether the line should be in private or public ownership; it is about getting the franchise right. I want to see the franchise taken forward promptly, with customers right at the heart of the railway. That means listening to what they want and responding to it. For my own area, in the past three years we have seen the first direct London to Harrogate service for 30 years. I remind the House that this service was removed under nationalisation, alongside the downgrading of services for Hull, Bradford, Cleethorpes and Teesside. The new service is fantastic. Our area has an important visitor economy and is hosting part of the Tour de France next year.

Mark Lazarowicz: I might be wrong, but is the service to Harrogate not an East Coast rail service? Does that not show that the operator is able to be flexible and respond to customer demand and passenger needs?

Andrew Jones: Of course it is an East Coast service. In some ways the operator has responded and I am quite happy to reflect that. I just think that more can be done and the hon. Gentleman’s comment does not really address why our railways saw such a dramatic turnaround after privatisation. Opposition Members have had no comments whatever to make about how we have had decades and decades of decline in passenger numbers. Privatisation occurred and the situation changed utterly. I am sure the Minister has noticed that no Opposition Member has said a word about the change in passenger numbers from the mid-1990s onwards.
	I would like to see the new franchise introduce more services for Harrogate. I am sure that representations will be made nearer the time. Flexibility will need to be built in so that we can allow the operator, whoever wins the franchise, to respond to demand. I hope there will be new rolling stock, as some of the trains on the service are from the 1970s, and line investment. It is worth noting that new rolling stock and line investment would change the cost base of the franchise, and start to change some of the numbers that Opposition Members have been keen to quote this afternoon. I urge the Minister to press on, because that will mean more innovation and more success for our industry.

Hugh Bayley: Let me start by saying something that I think everybody in the Chamber will agree with. The east coast main line is an absolutely vital economic artery, pumping the lifeblood of our economy—jobs, investment and growth—through all the regions and cities that it serves from London to Edinburgh. That is why this debate is so important. It is not a technical or ideological debate about how the service should be run; it is a debate about how the railways can assist economic recovery in our regions. That is the question we need to debate today.
	We had a similar debate in Westminster Hall two weeks ago, in which many hon. Members spoke. I have some sympathy for the Minister: he was left with absolutely no time to respond to the many questions that were asked. However, we have more time today. To recap briefly, I would like to pose two questions that I posed a fortnight ago to which the Minister was unable to respond.
	First, if the Government go ahead with refranchising, will the headquarters of the new service be based in York? The headquarters currently provide over 200 jobs, but they act as a sheet anchor for thousands of other jobs with railway engineering companies, suppliers and for Network Rail’s operation of the east coast main line, which employs more people than the train operating company. The Government are legally able to make that a condition of the franchise and there is a precedent. When the train operating company last changed hands, I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), the then Minister, whether he would give a commitment to ensure stability by keeping the headquarters in York. He said:
	“The headquarters to which my hon. Friend referred are in York. I can reassure him that when the holding company”—
	that is, East Coast—
	“takes over the running of the contract later on this year, the headquarters will stay in York.”—[Official Report, 1 July 2009; Vol. 495, c. 431.]
	For the sake of stability for the business now at a time of economic fragility, will the current Minister make a similar commitment?
	Secondly, I asked the Minister whether the Government will do what they say they will do and consult users of the service about what they want. It was reported in Modern Railways in May that the Department for Transport would take into account passengers’ views in relation to the train operating companies. Will the Department therefore commission an independent body to conduct a survey to see whether passengers want the service to be taken away from East Coast? A number of Members on both sides of the House have talked about the performance of East Coast, praising the company. We know that it has returned more money to the Government in premium payments—more than £540 million so far—than any other franchise holder on the line. We also know that it is more efficient than its predecessor and is providing value for money for the Government and the taxpayer.
	The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) is a fair-minded man. He and I should sit down together and look at the statistics. However, to quote Alan Whitehouse, a former BBC transport correspondent, on the official measure of punctuality—the percentage
	of trains that reach their destination less than 10 minutes late over the period of a year—the east coast main line under East Coast’s management did better than the west coast main line under Virgin’s management. If we compare the two in terms of trains that actually arrive on time—that is to say, less than 60 seconds late—East Coast scores 61% for punctuality, whereas Virgin on the west coast main line scores 49%.

Stewart Jackson: I had no wish to cast aspersions on the current operators, but the hon. Gentleman knows that Passenger Focus, for instance, said in response to the Brown review of franchising last year that the determinants of punctuality were too loose and should be tightened up anyway. However, I concede that there are extraneous circumstances under the auspices of Network Rail that affect performance—such as the gentleman on a bridge at Walton in Peterborough last night who detained me by half an hour.

Hugh Bayley: It is useful that the hon. Gentleman says that we should listen to Passenger Focus, because it currently gives the East Coast service the highest level of satisfaction that it has received since Passenger Focus starting doing its surveys in 1999.

Ian Mearns: The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) has just highlighted one of the problems that franchise holders like East Coast face. They are reliant on Network Rail and on the infrastructure if their trains are to run on time. Extraneous issues—including, unfortunately, people trying to commit suicide—are completely beyond their control. Having said that, they do very well in spite of all that.

Hugh Bayley: My hon. Friend makes a good point.

John Mann: rose—

Hugh Bayley: Our speeches are time limited and we get no injury time for interventions, so I must make some progress.
	The good performance that East Coast has achieved is all the more surprising because it has not been given the security of tenure of a 10 to 15-year franchise that the comparator company on the west coast has. In fact, East Coast has not really known from one month to the next where it stands or whether it will continue to run the service or not. Last year, the Department for Transport asked the chief executive of East Coast, Karen Boswell, to prepare a five-year plan for the future of her company. She submitted that plan in January this year. In March, an interview with Karen Boswell by Roger Ford was published in Modern Railways, in which she set out her plans, and there was no hint of privatisation at that point. So what has changed?
	Franchising is not a low-cost option. The National Audit Office report on the east coast National Express failure estimated that that had cost the Department for Transport between £330 million and £380 million. The Department had expected to receive that money from the franchisee up to 2012 but had not done so. The funds then had to be recovered from other Department for Transport budgets. The aborted west coast main line franchising exercise cost the taxpayer £55 million. Alan Whitehouse, the former BBC transport correspondent,
	estimates that each one of those bidding for a major franchise such as these spends between £10 million and £13 million in pursuit of its bid. Those costs ultimately come back to the passengers in the form of higher fares.
	Two weeks ago, in the debate in Westminster Hall, I argued that East Coast should continue to run the service, not indefinitely but for the period of a full franchise, so that it could be an effective public sector comparator. We have seen today in The Northern Echo that Lord Adonis, who was Secretary of State in 2009 when East Coast was given the job of rescuing the service, shares that view. It is of course consistent with what he said in 2009, which was that the service should be run by a public sector contractor, East Coast, but not indefinitely. I am not arguing for an indefinite arrangement; I am asking for a period equivalent to a private franchise so that we can compare like with like. That is still my view.
	I have been thinking about the matter further, however, and I put it to the Minister that we already have a public sector comparator. By the end of this financial year, East Coast will have run the service for four years, returned about £800 million to the Treasury and provided an improved service. If the Government are hellbent on refranchising, will they commission an independent body—perhaps the National Audit Office—to analyse the bids that they receive and compare them with East Coast’s performance? If none of the bidders that responds to the Minister’s tendering exercise can produce a robust case to show that it can deliver a better and safer service with lower fares and a bigger financial return to the Government than East Coast is currently providing, he should keep the service with East Coast.
	The Government seem to be hellbent on refranchising, but we know that refranchising against a short timetable is unwise, to say the least. The Laidlaw inquiry, which looked into the fiasco of the collapsed west coast main line franchising process, came up with this recommendation:
	“I recommend that the Department for Transport ensures that a credible timeline, with reference to the complexity of the procurement involved, is assessed and agreed at the inception”,
	and he argued that this timeline should provide time for contingencies, and for comprehensive quality and commercial reviews. The Brown report, a rather wider one on the franchising system, which was also commissioned following the west coast collapse, proposed a detailed 24-month timeline for running a franchising process.
	Let us look at what happened with the west coast franchising process—the rushed, bungled and failed west coast franchising process. The invitation to tender was put out in May 2011. The franchise was awarded to FirstGroup in August 2012—15 months later—with a view to starting the service in December 2012, 19 months later. Both Laidlaw and Brown said it was too short a timetable.
	What, then, are the Government proposing for the east coast main line franchise? They intend to put a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, which I take as a starting point, in October this year, with an invitation to tender in February 2014 and with the contract being awarded in October 2014—not in 15, 19 or 24 months, as proposed in the Brown review, but in just 12 months. The franchise is intended to start in February 2015, conveniently timed just before the next general election, which would be 16 months after the
	process started, as opposed to the 19 months from invitation to tender through to the intended start on the west coast franchise.
	The Government are proposing to do this east coast franchise not only in a more rushed and hurried way than was done with the west coast franchise—the failed west coast franchise—but in a substantially shorter period than was proposed by each of the two reports they set up to investigate why the west coast franchising process had failed. When will the Minister’s party ever learn? This looks like a fire sale, rushed through before the 2015 general election.
	I served on the Bill Committee that scrutinised what is now the Railways Act 1993—the legislation that introduced the privatisation of our railways. I have seen it all before. In Committee, the Government of the day said that they would franchise rail services to train operating companies, but that they had no intention of privatising the railway infrastructure of track and signalling. Then, after the Bill went through, the Government changed their mind and decided to rush through—steamroller through—the privatisation of the rail track by creating a body called Railtrack. We know that this body spectacularly and comprehensively failed. When it collapsed, the Labour Government had to put together a public sector rescue at considerable expense to the taxpayer. They created Network Rail—and we still have it as a not-for-profit company owned by guarantee, which does not have directors and does not pay dividends. We have a public sector body.
	Alan Whitehouse had this to say in the Yorkshire Post just over a week ago:
	“Until just a few weeks ago, East Coast was to remain in the public sector for as far ahead as anyone could see. Suddenly, it is up for grabs. Can it be a mere coincidence that the Transport Secretary…announces a re-franchising plan that would see East Coast trains returned to the private sector by the time of the next election? Or a piece of blatant electioneering? It all smacks of a similar desperation to that of the Major government’s ‘scorched earth’ policy of making rail privatisation a fait accompli before an election that he knew he would lose.”
	The Minister does not have to take it from me. He does not even have to take it from a well-respected transport correspondent like Mr Whitehouse. He need only look at the history—his own party’s history—of what a rushed privatisation on the railways led to last time his party was incumbent at the time of an election. I say to him, “Slow down, even if you believe that reprivatisation is the right thing to do. Do not make the same mistakes that you made with the west coast main line. Take your time. I have no doubt that if you win the next general election you will go ahead with it, but if you do it as a fire sale, it will be a disaster not just for the railway, but for the economies of our regions that are served by it.”

Grahame Morris: I congratulate those who managed to secure a debate that is very timely, given some of the announcements that have been made lately. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us time to discuss this important issue.
	The Government now have yet another opportunity to listen to the overwhelming majority of the British public, including people on both sides of the political
	spectrum. I think that the logic of the arguments for allowing the east coast main line to remain in public hands is powerful. The Minister likes to call me a dinosaur for believing that public services should be run for the benefit and in the interests of the public.
	[Interruption.] 
	Members will see, if they check the record, that the Minister called me a dinosaur during a debate in Westminster Hall.
	I support the renationalisation of the railways, especially when we see Directly Operated Railways delivering a better service and returning more money to the taxpayer than the private sector—which, let us not forget, has failed to deliver twice on the east coast main line. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it. However, I think that we should look at the recent polling evidence. The average finding is that 70% of the public regularly support calls for the railways to be run publicly, although some polls produce larger percentages. I think that those people would be offended by the contempt and, indeed, total disregard that the Minister and his party have shown for their views and the concern that they have expressed about the failure of the privatised rail system. [Interruption.] It is certainly a failure when compared with the success that the publicly run public service operator has been able to deliver on the east coast main line. If the Minister will bear with me, I shall explain shortly why I think that the system has been a failure, not least on grounds of price.
	As other Members have already pointed out today, Directly Operated Railways has returned £640 million to the Treasury in premium payments—I believe that £40 million of that has been invested in improving the service—and it is estimated that it will have paid back £800 million in premiums by April 2014. That is a tremendous success story, which should be noted by Government Members who malign the performance of public industries. Directly Operated Railways also receives the lowest net subsidy: 1%, compared with an industry average of 32%. We should not forget that a shining example of privatisation cost the public purse £4 billion a year in subsidy.
	Let us consider the performance of National Express, the failing private operator. It returned only £370 million in premium payments before turning its back on the franchise, leaving the taxpayer to face not only the shortfall referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell), but the disruption that it had caused. Incredibly, despite National Express having failed to deliver on its commitments, the Government will not stop it or other failed operators bidding for the rail franchise, should they decide to go ahead. In a written answer to my good and hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the Minister confirmed:
	“National Express and its subsidiaries are permitted to submit for the pre-qualification process (PQQ) to run passenger rail services in all franchise competitions including the East Coast Main Line.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2013; Vol. 563, c. 970W.]
	That is incredible.

Bob Stewart: If the company permitted to bid, surely its past record will be taken into account? Is that not the way it will work?

Grahame Morris: I suspect the Minister may be able to clarify the criteria, but judging by the answer he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North,
	I suspect that will not be the case. Past performance does not seem to be an impediment, although perhaps it should be—and perhaps the Minister will take more notice of such a suggestion from his own side.
	Whether in the public or private sector, companies that fail to deliver on their commitments or promises to the taxpayer should not be allowed to take over franchises that they have shown they are not competent to run. It is not that National Express failed on one franchise and is bidding for another; it has already failed to deliver on the east coast line.
	The public understandably have concerns about the Government position in relation to this matter, and they must not reward failure. If the Minister goes ahead with the privatisation, how will he guarantee that any future operator awarded the east coast main line franchise will be able to fulfil its contract, and what assurances can he provide that the taxpayer will see a similar rate of return in respect of premium payments as they received from Directly Operated Railways? It has been said that DOR is a not-for-profit service, but that is not quite true, as it is hugely profitable, but all the profits go to the taxpayer. That is the position, and I am sure various private train operating companies would relish getting their hands on that level of turnover.

Ronnie Campbell: I wonder who.

Grahame Morris: Yes, we can speculate about who might take on the franchise, but it is incredibly profitable and I am sure there will be no shortage of takers. That money should be going into the Treasury at this time of austerity, however.

Alan Reid: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s speech, but I am still not sure whether he is arguing for the east coast main line to be operated by a publicly owned company permanently or just for a temporary period that happens to be longer than the Government propose?

Grahame Morris: I can give a direct answer to that: yes, I am arguing for permanent public ownership. I am in favour of directly delivered public services, and although I do not want to take up too much time, I have some pretty powerful arguments on why that should be the case.
	The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) talked about competition. Even if someone could not support the entire network being in public ownership, I think a reasonable person might be able to say that, for reasons of having a comparator, we should keep the very successful public provision through DOR, to act as a test and yardstick for us to assess how the private sector is doing. Instead we have the preposterous position of a failed private operator of the franchise not being barred from bidding, but instead being allowed to rebid to operate it. The Government seem quite happy to allow that.
	Another perversity is that the Government seem to have this ideological, dogmatic hatred of nationalisation and publicly provided services. They are against the idea of a directly operated public service on the east coast. They are quite happy for public sector companies
	based in Germany, France and Holland to operate such franchises, but not UK public sector companies. That seems completely inconsistent.
	The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) gave some interesting statistics about the cost of season tickets. It is interesting to look at the costs in some European countries. Research shows that a 24-mile commute into Paris costs about £924 a year, a similar commute into Berlin costs some £700, and a similar commute into Madrid costs £654. A similar commute into London costs £3,268 a year. How can anybody suggest that the privately operated service is a huge success and stands international comparison? This follows a decade of inflation-busting fare increases which, although never welcome, are putting an unbearable strain on family budgets at a time of austerity, with wages frozen and in many cases falling.
	I understand that the rail Minister is a regular user of the network—after being persuaded to swap his chauffeur-driven ministerial limousine for the train. Has he had a chance to explain to other commuters exactly what privatised rail has delivered for the taxpayer—other than the highest fares in Europe? It certainly has not delivered investment. Sir David Higgins, the head of Network Rail, has warned that it would take
	“30 years of continuous investment to ensure our railways get to the level of some of the European railways that we admire”.
	Dividends to shareholders of the big five transport companies that are contracted to run the UK rail service have reached nearly £2.5 billion since 2000, and there are plenty of examples of excessive boardroom pay; some of the highest paid directors have received in excess of £1 million.
	However, East Coast and Directly Operated Railways offer a genuine alternative, with all profits being reinvested in services or in the Treasury—money which otherwise would have been used as dividends for shareholders or bonuses for fat cats. According to the “Rebuilding Rail” report, the cost of running the railway has more than doubled in real terms since privatisation. It is estimated that privatisation costs the equivalent of £1.2 billion a year—more than the cost of public ownership.
	In the face of multiple market failures, higher costs to the public in fares and subsidies, and lower premium payments, there is nothing more ideological than the Minister and the Tory party remaining wedded to this disastrous railway privatisation policy. I hope he will listen to the concerns expressed today by Members, and by the British public, and end this failed franchise policy.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I point out that we need to conclude Back-Bench speeches in about the next 50 minutes, so if everybody is to get in, speeches need to be a bit shorter and with not too many interventions. Then, nobody will be disappointed.

Alan Reid: The east coast main line is vital in providing connections between Scotland, north-east England, Yorkshire, eastern England and London. Liberal Democrats in government are delivering a massive investment in rail infrastructure
	and are determined to put passengers at the heart of the railway system. That is why, as part of this coalition Government, we are investing £240 million in the east coast main line between 2014 and 2019.
	On 25 March, the coalition Government announced that the franchise for the east coast main line is due to be returned to the private sector in February 2015. Officials from the Department are meeting interested parties, including Transport Scotland, to ensure that future changes to the east coast main line are co-ordinated successfully. Part of the programme will be the establishment of new vehicles for the inter-city east coast franchise, which will replace the existing set of diesel-powered high-speed trains from 2018 onwards.
	It is true that under the nationalised operating company, there has been an extended period of successful operation, but—

Sheila Gilmore: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the new rolling stock is not linked to the refranchise?

Alan Reid: The Government are providing the money for the new rolling stock. Yes, it is perfectly possible that if the railway was to continue under the directly operated company that new rolling stock could still be provided.
	Before the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) interrupted me, I said the word “but”, and I want to draw the House’s attention to one of the conclusions of the Brown review. It highlighted that any significant delay in the resumption of the franchising process could have a negative effect on investments involving rolling stock, upgrades and expansion and could result in some international suppliers deciding to make alternative investments outside the UK.
	In a supporting letter from Mr Brown to the Transport Secretary, dated 31 December 2012, he wrote:
	“I have come to the conclusion that the franchising system is not broken, but, on the contrary, it has made a major contribution to Britain’s increasingly successful rail network. There is no credible case for major structural change.”
	That demonstrates that the operation of train services indefinitely by the directly operated company is not an alternative to our system. Direct operation is a key part of the private franchising model, but it was only ever meant to be a short-term mechanism as a measure of last resort.
	We heard Labour Members arguing for the continuation of the directly operated model, but the Labour party is divided. By my count, we have two votes for nationalisation for ever, one for nationalisation for an indefinite period and, from the hon. Member for Edinburgh East, one for “Don’t know”. I do not think I received an answer to my intervention, but if she wishes to clarify that I am perfectly happy to give way to her a second time. The resumption of the franchise process should take place at a speed and pace that works for the Department and allows it to make necessary improvements. That was one of the key proposals of the Brown review and is why the Department will now ensure that no more than three to four franchise competitions are delivered per year in total.
	Let me conclude by reiterating the commitment from the Liberal Democrats, as part of the coalition Government, to the improvement of our railways. We and our coalition
	partners are determined to place the passenger at the heart of the rail system and deliver better value for money in the system following years of extreme inefficiency under Labour. That is why we are delivering the biggest investment in our railways since the Victorian era. The east coast franchise and the new vehicles that are coming with it are an important part of that investment package.

Graeme Morrice: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), but it is more of a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend—and namesake—the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris). I know that that can sometimes be confusing, particularly when we speak consecutively.
	I congratulate those hon. Members who are sponsoring the motion on their success in getting the Backbench Business Committee to agree to its being debated today, and particularly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), the lead sponsor. The whole House will be aware of her tenacity on this issue, and I commend her on her opening remarks. As she mentioned, she is a regular user of the east coast main line service from Edinburgh Waverley to London King’s Cross, as I am. So we have both been made aware at first hand, as I am sure other hon. Members have, of the benefits of the service to Scotland, the north-east of England, Yorkshire and beyond. I am sure that, like me, she appreciates the general reliability, frequency, excellent customer service and value for money the service provides to its passengers.
	As a state-owned service, the ethos of putting the customer first and ensuring the most effective and efficient use of public resources is the prime objective of the company. Of course, private companies can be just as good, but their first loyalty is to their shareholders, and any profits not reinvested go on share dividends, often to the fat cats of the City of London. The difference with East Coast being a subsidiary of Directly Operated Railways, a holding company owned by the Department for Transport, is that its surpluses are paid back to the Exchequer. As Labour Members have said throughout this debate, £800 million has been returned to the taxpayer since 2009. Moreover, East Coast has invested some £40 million in the service, including in infrastructure and asset improvements. It also has the best punctuality there has been on the line since the service was privatised, and all passenger surveys and polling indicates that the overwhelming majority of people are satisfied with the service and wish it to remain in public ownership. So why are the Conservative-led Government, supported, as we have heard, by their compliant fellow travellers in the Liberal Democrats, intent on reprivatising what is evidently a most successful, lucrative and popular public service?

Alan Beith: Will the hon. Gentleman say why the preceding Labour Government’s policy was to reprivatise this service?

Graeme Morrice: We will hear shortly from the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson on what our policy is on this matter, but I know what it is and I concur with it: retaining this service in public ownership.

Alan Reid: But the crux of the matter is this: is it Labour party policy that this service should remain in public ownership for ever or simply for a temporary period that happens to be longer than the one the Government have set out?

Graeme Morrice: As I have just mentioned, we will hear from our Front Bencher on this shortly. My own view is that this should be for an indefinite period, but the clear blue water between us and the Government on this issue is that we support a successful public service, whereas the Liberal Democrats are as one with the Conservatives in supporting the privatisation of this service. We have to question the reason why. Has this been proposed for the right financial and service reasons, or is there another, perhaps more partisan, explanation?
	I wish to raise a relatively straightforward issue of fact. In an answer to a recent parliamentary question, the Minister of State said that investment in the east coast main line’s infrastructure is not dependent on reprivatising passenger operations. He said:
	“Funding for the 2014-19 upgrade of the east coast main line will be delivered through the Office of Rail Regulation approving a £240 million increase in the value of Network Rail’s regulatory access base. Network Rail may then borrow up to this amount to fund the upgrade works.”—[Official Report, 15 April 2013; Vol. 561, c. 2W.]
	However, he has since asserted otherwise on a number of occasions. For example, at the Transport Committee meeting on 24 April he said:
	“What I think is important, looking to the future, is how you make the needed and important investment in the East Coast Main Line to bring it up to scratch. You will be as aware as I am that part of the electrification is very antiquated and needs to be replaced and upgraded because it is causing significant problems to the quality of service. I do not believe that keeping the East Coast Main Line in public ownership is the most effective and swiftest way of getting that investment. I believe that returning the East Coast Main Line to a franchise operation offers the best opportunity to move forward. In addition, the Government and the rail industry, through Network Rail, are continuing to invest in the East Coast Main Line, but we need to accelerate that and increase it.”
	Then, at Transport questions on 25 April, the Minister stated that
	“yes, there will be taxpayers’ money involved in investing in the east coast main line, but, more importantly, the involvement of the private sector means that we can increase, over and above the taxpayers’ money, the money that can be invested in enhancing and improving the service for passengers.”—[Official Report, 25 April 2013; Vol. 561, c. 995.]
	Despite a number of hon. Members raising this with the Minister in the debate a fortnight ago, he failed to address this point in his reply. Therefore I would be grateful if he could now state once and for all whether any elements of replacing and upgrading the electrification on the east coast main line are dependent on the transfer of the operation of passenger services to the private sector. Similarly, it would be helpful if he could explain how this investment will be delivered more swiftly if reprivatisation takes place. Finally, can he provide more detail of the increased investment, over and above the taxpayers’ money being put into the line, that would be delivered as a result of privatisation?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: My hon. Friend is making an excellent case to keep the line in the public sector and at the very least to allow a
	public company to bid for it. Does he agree that as the Minister has made it clear that the planned infrastructure upgrade work on the east coast main line between 2014 and 2019 will be borne by Network Rail, that answers the question?

Graeme Morrice: Indeed. I am trying to expose the inconsistency in what the Minister has been saying. Unless he can explain his position when he speaks later, it remains unclear why all this private investment has been deemed necessary at all.
	The past, current and planned public investment into the east coast main line has been and continues to be highly effective. However, if further investment is required, it could easily be provided by public means, given that the service returns far more to the Exchequer than it receives in subsidy. Furthermore, given the thoroughly negative history of private involvement in the east coast main line, it is highly probable that taxpayers will once again be left to pick up the tab, as we have seen in so many other botched franchise deals, not least on the west coast main line, if the east coast service is privatised.
	In summary, the British taxpayer has funded the east coast main line service successfully since November 2009, after 12 years of declining profits and eventual failure under both GNER and National Express. The east coast service became hugely profitable almost immediately after renationalisation and has returned its soaring profits to the Exchequer every year, with an estimated total returned in excess of £800 million by the end of this financial year.
	It is unfathomable that the response of the Government to this success, so quickly established after years of failed management by the private sector, is to decide that this is a good time to give National Express a second chance. It is appalling that the Minister and his Department are so eager to overlook this clear demonstration of the high quality of our public rail service management. Rather than continue with this charade, I suggest that the Minister should focus his efforts on sorting out the debacle of the west coast main line and other similar fiascos.
	It is ill-advised for the Government to create an issue out of nothing and waste resources in trying to solve a problem that is not there, when they already struggle to deal with real problems and real issues, often of their own making. I can only conclude that it is merely political dogma that is driving the agenda, which I hope will ultimately be derailed.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I need Members to speak for less than 10 minutes if everyone is to get in, so please watch the clock and remember that your colleagues are waiting to speak. I call Andy McDonald.

Andrew McDonald: I will be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Members who secured this important debate.
	The passions that questions of democratic control arouse in all parts of the House are understandable, and falling into dogmatic defence of the present or romanticised
	views of the past is a constant danger, but the main problem of franchising is not the money skimmed off the top by the train operating companies—the money paid out in dividends was 2% of sales in 2012—or even the massive fiscal drag caused by fragmentation, payments to rolling stock leasing companies and the excess interest on Network Rail debt, paid for no other reason than to keep it off the public balance sheet. The biggest problem of franchising, which echoes through the McNulty report, the Brown report and every major policy discussion of the past 20 years, is that the debate about the future of rail in this country has become a debate about what colour the trains are. The real debate must be about whether rail is a private enterprise or a public service.
	The Minister himself has been caught in such narrow thinking, insisting time and again in Westminster Hall that Directly Operated Railways could not run a railway indefinitely, because it was not intended to do so when it was set up in the dim and distant days of 2009. With respect, though, what previous Transport Ministers imagined DOR’s role to be is of no consequence. The question surely must be not whether it was intended to run indefinitely, but whether it is capable of doing so. The tremendous success of East Coast demonstrates that it is. Total premium plus operating profit amounted to £647.6 million in the four years to 31 March 2013, and as hon. Friends have pointed out, the total by the end of the term will be £800 million. That is more in both cash and real terms than any previous franchisee on the line has achieved. All that money is available for reinvestment in our railway network.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Could not the Government, if they wanted to, amend the Railways Act 1993 to enable East Coast to bid for the franchise as a public company? That might not be exactly what we want, but it would at least help.

Andrew McDonald: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Such a leap of imagination—if people opened their mind to other possibilities that are available—would be welcome.
	East Coast has achieved revenue growth of 9% over three full years, with 4.3% growth in 2012-13. Journey numbers have increased from 18.1 million in 2009-10 to 19.1 million in 2012-13. All that has resulted in a £40 million surplus. I was disappointed to hear Government Members criticising the service East Coast provides, when the record shows the contrary is true. Nine out of 10 trains are on time, according to the latest public performance measure, and the national rail passenger survey gives the service a 92% overall customer satisfaction rating—the highest score of any franchise on the line since records began in autumn 1999. Government Members’ critical comments are therefore highly regrettable.
	If East Coast remains in public hands indefinitely, it will be to the benefit of passengers, communities and taxpayers. Several times in this course of this debate, the idea has been floated that such an arrangement would be more attractive than Ministers realise and that the public would find it engaging. More than that, it would mark a fundamental change in the thinking of the past 30 years—the economic voodoo that says that involving the private sector always, magically, creates benefits.
	The truth is that railways cannot be run for profit. British Rail was subsidised. Network Rail is subsidised. No railway in the world is not subsidised in some shape or form. In that environment, train operating companies are simply one more player lobbying for a share of taxpayers’ money. They are required to return a profit for their shareholders, but their profits are not won in the marketplace; they are created by legislation.
	The efforts of train operating companies are not turned outward, focused on striving towards greater efficiency or customer satisfaction; they are turned inward, focused on ringing out as much subsidy as possible from the taxpayer. Fares cover, on average, only 65% of the cost of the network, so all dividends are the result of Government largesse—and Governments have been more than generous. In the two years from September 2010 to September 2012, Network Rail’s debt, for which the taxpayer is ultimately responsible, has increased by £4.1 billion.
	I would like to take this opportunity to praise the Department for Transport for resisting the self-defeating austerity advocated by the rest of the coalition Government and borrowing at very low interest rates to invest in upgrading our national infrastructure. I also offer my consolation for the fact that, in order to keep that off the Chancellor’s radar, the Department has had to pretend that it is not Government debt and pay an additional £150 million a year in interest as a result.
	Surely now is the time for honesty. Private companies in the rail sector do not spur innovation. They extract value and are unnecessary, as East Coast shows. The investment in the railways is all Government money, underwritten with Government debt. The current system is unsustainable, because Network Rail now spends more on servicing its debt than on maintaining and upgrading the network, and that debt is increasing. The taxpayer paid for the service, pays for the service and will always pay for the service. It is only fair that they get what they pay for.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I am putting a nine-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches to ensure that the remaining three Members who wish to speak can do so. If there are interventions and compensation, it will take us longer to get there.

Ian Mearns: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) on securing this important and timely debate from the Backbench Business Committee—I have to declare an interest, because I sit on it. Like many colleagues, given the recent history of the east coast main line and privatisation, not to mention the present Government’s failure on the west coast main line franchise, I am deeply concerned about the Government’s plans and the impending privatisation of the east coast main line.
	The Secretary of State for Transport’s announcement to start the tendering process for the east coast main line and nine further franchises paid no regard to public interest. It will result in the return of a profitable rail service to private hands within the next two years. The plans are no doubt a recipe for disaster. We already know that South West Trains, another private franchise, is in operating difficulties.
	We have clearly established that Government Members are in favour of state ownership of the railways. I am sure that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), are in favour of state ownership, but not UK state ownership; they are in favour of German, French or Dutch state company ownership of UK railways. Do we honestly think for one moment that Angela Merkel would allow such a situation to prevail in the Federal Republic of German? I do not think so.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Is it not ludicrous that a publicly owned company in the UK cannot bid but publicly owned companies in other European countries can?

Ian Mearns: Given how Eurosceptic so many Government Members are, I think that it is utterly bizarre that they would rather see profits from UK railways going to France, Germany or Holland.
	If Members have any doubts about the way this is all coming about, they need only look back a few years to the Government’s rescue of the line from the failing £1.4 billion National Express franchise. However, despite the private sector’s record of failure, the Government are determined to press ahead regardless of the interest of the travelling public. They would pursue the foolish policy of privatisation, despite history repeatedly telling us that the privatisation of railway lines and rail infrastructure is detrimental to cost and service for the customer and to the Government because of huge financial bail-outs.
	The state-owned Directly Operated Railways, which runs the east coast main line, has generated and paid the Government £640 million in premiums and profits since 2009, and it is anticipated that by the end of this financial year that figure will be £800 million in total. Surely even the Chancellor or the Finance Ministers whom I faced on the Finance Bill Committee earlier this afternoon would want to see those moneys returned to the Chancellor’s coffers. Even this Government, given the current financial state of the country, should want to keep the franchise in public hands and see those profits repatriated to the Treasury.
	The Government should pocket the profits for the public and use them to help cut the deficit and perhaps even invest in infrastructure. One thing that we have to accept about the east coast main line—railway engineers have told me this—is that, unfortunately, when it was first electrified I am afraid to say that it was done on the cheap; it was not a good model of electrification in the first instance. This Government, however, do not want to see that money reinvested. It is clear that, for them, private shareholder interest comes before the public interest. This is yet another example of this Government’s failed and ideologically driven economic policies.
	No one denies that the east coast main line suffers its own problems of chronic under-investment, particularly with regard to what is now very tired rolling stock. We have discussed rolling stock reinvestment, but the problem is that we are being promised jam not tomorrow, but the day after tomorrow. The first new rolling stock on the east coast main line will be the diesel replacement, but that will not actually occur until 2018, with the rest of the fleet following further down the line. Let us not
	forget that the east coast main line inherited this burden from the privately owned rail firms, Great North Eastern Railway and National Express.
	There has been very little rolling stock investment on the line for many decades. There has been some refurbishment, but that was mainly on carriages that were damaged following the tragic Hatfield and Selby rail crashes. The only way to run an effective rail service is to ensure that the infrastructure is up to scratch through continued investment, yet the overriding objective from a private sector perspective is not to invest in maintenance and customer satisfaction, but to return money to shareholders.
	Privatisation in the rail sector is consistently lacking and detrimental to customers and the industry. Why privatise a service that has been successful? In short, it is not broke, so why fix it?
	Let us recall the demise of Railtrack in 2002. The problems were numerous, but the straw that broke the camel’s back was the requirement for essential safety repairs following the Paddington and Hatfield disasters. Railtrack—a privately owned company under the failed model—was answerable to shareholders rather than the public. It was, to put it bluntly, badly managed, effectively bankrupt and unwilling to try to fund urgent safety improvements as well as normal running costs. Subsequently, as we know, the company was put into administration and Network Rail, a not-for-profit body, was invented to take over the rail network.
	Given the inherent debt of Network Rail, is any Government Member suggesting for one moment that we re-privatise it? Of course not, because it would be completely and utterly stupid. Even if it were privatised—let us be honest—who really trusts this Government to introduce a fair and transparent, or even competent, tendering process in the current rail industry? Let us not forget the west coast franchise, for instance, which has cost the Government at least £50 million. What a complete shambles—a shambles that has resulted in Virgin, which lost to First Group in the tendering process, having to have its contract extended until 2017. The whole model does not produce competition; it produces a series of service monopolies on individual lines. That is not competition as anyone would understand it.
	In among all this, the staff on the east coast main line have worked diligently and conscientiously through all the management changes over the years, but they have seen the equipment and rolling stock that they work on slowly deteriorate around them. Those staff are a credit to the service and deserve our congratulations. They and the travelling public they serve on the east coast main line deserve so much better.
	The east coast main line should remain where the vast majority of the travelling public want it—in the public sector, in public ownership—and some of the surpluses that it generates should be reinvested into the service itself.

Mary Glindon: I not only congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) on securing the debate, but thank her for all the hard work that she has done in spearheading the campaign to keep the east coast main line in public ownership.
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell), I note that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that he wants to balance the books and keep costs down for taxpayers. He therefore needs to have words with the Secretary of State for Transport and his Ministers, because they seem to be oblivious to that fact. While in public ownership, the east coast main line has provided vast sums of money to the coffers. The Office of Rail Regulation has reported that it offers the best value to taxpayers.
	I can only reiterate the facts and figures that colleagues have given this afternoon. Directly Operated Railways Ltd has paid back £602 million to the Government in premium payments, which is £232 million more than National Express paid back for the same service and £320 million more than Virgin-Stagecoach has paid back since 2009. The facts speak for themselves. Only 1.2% of East Coast’s income is derived from public subsidy, compared with an average of 32.1% for the private train operating companies. Since 2009, East Coast has reinvested all of its £40 million profit into the service, whereas Virgin, in operating the west coast main line since 1996, has paid nearly half a billion pounds in dividends to its shareholders.
	Like many of the MPs here, I use the east coast main line every week. I have used it for leisure purposes since the late ’60s. There are some fantastic places to visit along the line, my favourites being York and Edinburgh, where I have many happy memories. I have seen a number of improvements in the three short years during which I have travelled between Newcastle and King’s Cross as an MP. The trains are punctual for the most part and the staff are always friendly and helpful. Some 80% of the delays that do occur are beyond the control of East Coast. It should be praised for being at fault for so few delays. When trains are delayed, East Coast has a fantastic compensation scheme that refunds the fare. For MPs, that goes back to the taxpayer in lower expenses.
	It is possible to get to London from Newcastle in two hours and 40 minutes. That is fantastic for people who are travelling to work and must be lauded. The excellent rewards scheme, which the company initiated, means that there is plenty of opportunity to get free journeys. Again, when that is used by MPs, it means a direct saving to the taxpayer through lower expenses. Could we expect the same from a private operator that had to keep its shareholders happy?
	The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) is right that there has been a rise in the number of passengers using the service. There has been a 59% increase since 1944. However, analysis shows that that is the direct result of a 300% increase in public subsidy to the rail industry. It is also the case that although there has been passenger growth, there has been no corresponding increase in rail’s modal share compared to other forms of transport.
	The number of people using the trains has not, in effect, changed.
	In a recent Westminster Hall initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), the Minister did not give East Coast any acknowledgement for reinvesting its profits, and he failed to recognise that if it went into private ownership, the cost of upgrading
	the line and getting new stock would be met through public spending. He could not give a good reason why privatisation was being pushed through ahead of other franchises, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley). An article in
	The Northern Echo
	reported how Lord Adonis accused the Department for Transport of attempting to “rig the franchising timetable”, delaying costs for other lines, at a huge cost to taxpayers, in order to put East Coast first. He said:
	“East Coast is doing a great job and it should be allowed to get on with it.”
	I will conclude by agreeing with Frances O’Grady, the general secretary of the TUC and chair of Action For Rail, who said:
	“This decision defies all logic…The government…is not interested in evidence-based policy and is once again putting the interests of private companies and shareholders before those of commuters and taxpayers…This is privatisation for privatisation’s sake, as Ministers steadfastly ignore what is best for the rail industry and the people who work on it and use it.”
	I can only agree.

Mark Lazarowicz: The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) made a robust defence of privatisation—it must be unusual for the Conservatives to hear a Liberal Democrat robustly defending Government policies for a change—but it is not unfair to point out that he represents a constituency in the west of Scotland. Although I am sure some of his constituents use the east coast service from time to time, he will not have had my experience of regularly meeting constituents on the train or at the station. If he had, he would know that his defence for putting the east coast service back into private hands would not find great favour among users of that line, because the service provided since East Coast was brought in has been good. It has not always been perfect, but customers and passengers are generally satisfied and, as has been said, when there are problems—particularly delays—they are mostly not down to factors over which East Coast has, or is expected to have, any control.
	It is pretty outrageous of the Minister, who is generally a fair person, to use poor punctuality over some selected periods to justify putting the east coast service back into private hands. Some of his colleagues suggested that the private sector might be able to offer infrastructure improvements or offers for long-term planning, but for the last few years, East Coast has been operating the service, not on a day-to-day basis but certainly not on a long-term basis with any security. Surely we should now give East Coast the chance to see what it could come up with if it were given long-term security similar to a franchise period.
	The Government should approach the issue in a non-ideological way. As has been said in this debate, East Coast provides a good return to the taxpayer, in contrast to previous operators, and surely success should be rewarded, not punished as the Government seem intent on doing. I would like the service to be retained and continue to be operated by Directly Operated Railways. That would be the simplest way forward. If the Government are not prepared to do that, could they not allow Directly Operated Railways to come forward with an
	alternative bid and a proposal that could be put against whatever comes in from private tenderers, to see who offers best value for the Government and for passengers? Then we can judge who has the best offer on the table. The Government should at least do that, if they are not driven purely by an ideological bent, as they appear to be.
	I wonder whether the way the Government have timetabled the franchise process—presumably partly to comply with the Brown review and obviously in order to have the east coast main line back in private hands before the 2015 election—will result in a fair bidding process. I say that because with Virgin operating the west coast route until April 2017 and providing a service that is popular with many passengers, and with another branch of the Virgin empire operating flights to Edinburgh and Aberdeen, competition issues would surely arise if it was to bid for the east coast main line as well. It would not leave many alternative bidders, certainly from within the UK. The 2015 date has clearly been driven by the date of the general election, but I wonder whether the franchise process, instead of giving the Government a successful policy to sell to the public, might not in fact give them a huge headache just before May 2015. If that is the case, it will serve them right. I say give DOR on the east coast main line a chance at least to put forward an alternative bid to show what it can do, to show what its management team can do and to show what alternative offer can be put into the process to see which would bring the best value for money.
	I want to raise a point that has not been raised so far, but which is important to the future of the east coast main line and the franchise. We will be having a separate debate next week on High Speed 2, which I support—although I think it should be going all the way to Scotland—but whichever option is adopted for the future of high-speed rail in the UK, under the present plans the services operating the high-speed system will reach points near Manchester, York or Leeds, and will then be run on the existing rail network up to north-east England and Scotland—along what are endearingly called in the HS2 prospectus the “classic routes” to Edinburgh and Glasgow. It is reasonable to ask, therefore, how many more trains we can fit into the existing east coast main line network north of York.
	For those reasons, we need to plan for the future services, network and infrastructure on the east coast main line on a long-term, secure basis. Let us not forget what has happened before with the franchising process on that line. Twice the operator has been forced to give back the service to the Department, and most recently DOR was forced to operate the service at the last minute to ensure that the public continued getting a good service, as indeed they have.
	If DOR cannot continue operating the east coast service, the Government—whoever is in power in 2015—might find themselves in a difficult situation. At the moment, if a privately operated franchise collapses, DOR has the infrastructure, staffing and structure to move in quickly and take over the service. If we take away the DOR service on the east coast main line, we will take away a valuable alternative operator and comparator for the rail network. That is another reason why the Government should be rethinking this proposal and approaching it on a non-ideological basis. They
	need to consider what is best for the customer and passenger, and that must surely be to allow the current East Coast service to continue, rather than yet again to force it into private hands in the way suggested.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) on securing this important debate and on all her campaigning work on this issue.
	The east coast main line is vital for the connectivity of my constituency. As regular passengers, many of my constituents have an interest in the future management of the line. I too am a frequent user of the route, travelling between my constituency and Westminster, and I have generally been pleased by the speed, punctuality and comfort of the line and by the high standard of service and professionalism of its staff since it took over from National Express in 2009. I am not alone in thinking this. The most recent survey by the independent consumer group Passenger Focus found that 92% of passengers were satisfied with their experience with East Coast. To put that in perspective, that is the highest level of customer satisfaction recorded on the line since the surveys began in 1999, and 3% higher than the national average for long-distance operators. Improved satisfaction tells only some of the story. East Coast has increased its employee engagement, meaning that most employees are in favour of continued public ownership of the line. That should not be dismissed.
	My hon. Friends have gone through much of the detail on the benefits of East Coast, including the £800 million being paid back to the Exchequer, and I do not feel that I have time to reiterate all those points. What is clear from the information we have, and which is readily available to the Minister and his team, is that this is a well-run, profitable line that is popular with passengers. Why, then, are the Government insisting on selling off the franchise, while at the same time extending the contracts for less successful operators? I hope the Minister will answer that specific question.
	In the previous debate on this issue, the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) said that East Coast is simply treading water—an amazing claim to make considering that the franchise has consistently made improvements year on year. The Minister stated that East Coast had provided the foundations for a private company to come in with
	“certainty of ownership, longer planning horizons”—[Official Report, 5 June 2013; Vol. 563, c. 254WH.]
	to improve the service. The success of East Coast without that long planning horizon prompts the question: how much more would it be able to do if it was given a longer franchise? Perhaps he could confirm that the majority of investment in new rolling stock will come from the public sector, and not the private sector. We should not link the private sector franchise for running the line with future investment in rolling stock—they need to be kept separate. They keep getting muddled in our debates.
	The Liberal Democrat-Tory Government have been quick to say that when Labour set up Directly Operated Railways in 2009, after the privately owned National
	Express walked away from the franchise, it was there purely as a stop-gap. That was certainly true at the time. Since then, however, Labour has seen that the franchise is working for both passengers and the Government. Has the Minister not considered that the franchise is working well and should be extended? A large part of the Minister’s argument in the previous debate seemed to rest on the fact that previous Labour Transport Secretaries said that they would do the same as him. Today, we have a statement from Lord Adonis and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) saying that they are clearly in favour of the contract staying in public ownership. Lord Adonis said:
	“In the last four years East Coast has established itself as one of the best train operating companies in the country, both operationally and commercially. This has fundamentally changed the situation, and it is right and proper that East Coast should be allowed to continue as a public sector comparator to the existing private franchises.”
	It seems illogical to change something that is performing so well, particularly when it provides a useful comparator to measure the performance of private operators against. At the very least, the Government should delete section 25 of the Railways Act 1993 and allow East Coast to submit a bid for the new franchise. It seems almost perverse that, as we have heard from other colleagues today, state-owned companies from France, Germany and the Netherlands currently operate 10 of the 17 privately run UK rail franchises—thereby subsidising rail fares elsewhere in Europe—yet public companies from Britain are not even allowed to bid. Surely it is clear to everyone in the country—apart from the Minister and his team, perhaps—that the Government’s plans for rail are totally on the wrong track.

Lilian Greenwood: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) on securing this important and timely debate, which builds on her strong campaigning work on behalf of passengers, and the many hon. Members who have supported the compelling case that she set out.
	Since the Government announced the reprivatisation of East Coast services in March, the decision has been fiercely criticised in Parliament and the country at large. Ministers have been pressed on numerous occasions in this House and through dozens of written questions, yet they have not produced a single credible reason for rushing through this costly and unnecessary privatisation—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) made very eloquently, as did many others. Instead, one by one, the props supporting the Government’s argument have been kicked away.
	We were told that the east coast main line had to be privatised because punctuality had plateaud; and perhaps it really had disappointed in four weeks out of 52. That was the narrow window that the Minister quoted when he appeared before the Select Committee on Transport. Indeed, he even described East Coast as the worst operator for punctuality. However, contrary to what the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) claimed, the annual figures show that over the last year the east coast main line has outperformed the west coast on punctuality, according to both the public performance
	measure and the narrower “right time” assessment. Punctuality is now better than under the previous, failed private operators and is at its best since records began.

Stewart Jackson: I thank the shadow transport spokesman for giving way, but I did not actually say that. I compared the performance with the performance of the best-performing train operating companies, rather than making a strict comparison with the west coast main line. That is an important distinction.

Lilian Greenwood: I shall have to refer back to the record, but it is my recollection that the hon. Gentleman described East Coast as the worst operator for punctuality, which is certainly not the case, so this privatisation cannot be about punctuality.
	We were also told that the east coast main line must be privatised in order to attract private sector investment. The Minister told the Select Committee:
	“I do not believe that keeping the East Coast Main Line in public ownership is the most effective and swiftest way of getting that investment.”
	However, as he has confirmed in written answers to hon. Members, the cost of rolling stock procurement and track upgrades on the east coast main line will be met through public spending, just as the cost of the £9 billion west coast upgrade was borne by the taxpayer. If anything, the Government’s plans threaten investment. At the moment, all the east coast profits are invested in the service, instead of being split with shareholders. That would end in 2015 if the Government have their way, so this privatisation cannot be about investment either.
	We were also told that privatisation would deliver better value for money. On that point the Government’s argument takes its final departure from reality. Since 2009, East Coast has returned £640 million to the taxpayer and invested £40 million of its profits back in the service. As the Office of Rail Regulation recently confirmed, East Coast receives virtually no subsidy and yet made the second highest premium payments of any operator in 2011-12. To put that into context, subsidy accounted for just 1% of East Coast’s income, compared with an industry average of 32%.
	East Coast is also performing a vital role as a public sector comparator, especially as the Government seek to negotiate extensions with operators. This is an important point, and I shall return to it shortly. East Coast delivers good value for money, benefiting taxpayers and fare payers. Let us compare today’s situation with the instability and cost that resulted from the collapse of Sea Containers and the decision of National Express to walk away from the franchise. Against that backdrop, and taking into account ageing rolling stock and a route that was last upgraded in the 1980s, Directly Operated Railways has done very well to record such a strong financial performance.
	East Coast’s improvements to financial and operational performance have also been reflected in better services for passengers. Since 2009, the operator has introduced a new timetable providing 19 more services per day and, far from lacking innovation, it has taken initiatives on customer services. For example, many train operating companies are encouraging passengers to print advance-purchase single tickets at home, but East Coast is the only operator that allows them to amend a print-at-home ticket up to the evening before departure.
	The proposed privatisation is not about passengers. It is not about operational performance and it is not about value for money. It is about politics, and the determination of the Government to end a successful, not-for-dividend alternative to franchising. The taxpayer will end up footing the bill for this politically motivated decision. There will be the immediate cost of running the franchise competition. Will the Minister tell the House what the overall cost will be to the taxpayer of refranchising the east coast route?
	That covers only the direct cost, however. As we seek to reduce inefficiencies on the railways, East Coast provides a useful public sector comparator—a benchmark against which we can measure the costs of franchised operators. That was certainly the position of the present local transport Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). Perhaps he did not enjoy the support of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) when, in 2009, he told the House:
	“My view on the franchise agreements is clear…if a franchise is handed in to the Government—handed back—it should be held in the public sector as a public interest franchise, not least as a comparator for other franchise agreements currently operating.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2009; Vol. 495, c. 83WH.]
	That was his view in opposition. I wonder whether it is still his view in power.

Stewart Jackson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lilian Greenwood: I will not give way at the moment. I do not want to run out of time.
	Directly Operated Railways has another function. It allows the Government a fall-back operator, should they fail in their current negotiations for franchise extensions. Indeed, earlier this month, the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) told the House:
	“The operation of train services by DOR is an essential part of the privatised franchising model.”—[Official Report, 5 June 2013; Vol. 563, c. 225WH.]
	However, the Government are proposing to remove all operational responsibilities from DOR, leaving the body hamstrung. He cannot expect to retain the experienced and capable management team at DOR once the East Coast route is privatised. As the Department goes into negotiations for franchise extensions and direct awards, the train operating companies will know that Ministers are loth, for political reasons, to transfer operations to Directly Operated Railways. That must be dispiriting for those civil servants who are sent to negotiate the best possible deal for the taxpayer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East has noted, Ministers have taken their strongest bargaining chip and thrown it away. This mindset and this lack of imagination are compounding the costs incurred by the shambolic collapse of rail franchising on this Government’s watch. That collapse has cost the taxpayer at least £55 million, and the price is rising.

Stewart Jackson: I have to ask the hon. Lady a straightforward question: in 13 years, why did not the Labour Government repeal section 25 of the Railways Act 1993 in order to facilitate the franchising regime that she and her hon. Friends think is the right way forward?

Lilian Greenwood: I cannot speak about that as I was not here, but the fact is that we now conducting a thorough review of the how the railways are structured. East Coast should be kept as a not-for-dividend operator, and we are committed to doing that.

Alan Reid: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lilian Greenwood: No, as I want to make some progress.
	Decisions on rolling stock have been postponed and a lack of orders is hitting the supply chain, threatening jobs and skills. The National Audit Office has raised serious concerns over the Department for Transport’s ability to deliver major projects, including HS2, and the Thameslink rolling stock contract is only now being signed after an unacceptable three-year delay.
	With that background, it is no surprise that the rail industry has been shaken with a loss of confidence in the franchising process, hurting not just those on the front line, but the wider industry as well. Instead of concentrating on the problems caused by the collapse of the west coast and Great Western tenders, the Government are selling off the one part of the network that is benefiting from an extended period of stability. The east coast line could benefit further if the Government only had the courage to support it. Management have prepared a five-year plan for improving services, but Ministers have damned East Coast with faint praise, conceding that it is doing a good job, yet pushing through their politically motivated timetable for privatisation.
	As Lord Adonis and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) said this week, it makes no sense to reprivatise an East Coast service that is working. Let me quote the noble Lord:
	“East Coast is doing a great job and it should be allowed to get on with it…It has an impressive performance record, it has a loyal customer following and it is making big payments back to the government from its profit—to keep fares down for the travelling public—without needing to pay dividends to private shareholders …The government’s decision to rig the franchising timetable to get this unnecessary privatisation under way is requiring them to agree costly extensions to other contracts, wasting tax-payers’ money.”
	He is right, and I hope that the Government listen to that argument.
	We now have an opportunity to learn lessons and improve the rail industry for the better. Ministers should proceed on the basis of the best evidence available and promote what works instead of relying on political dogma. So it is disappointing to see them repeating the mistakes of the 1990s, when the ill-thought-through privatisation of the rail industry left us with problems with which the network is still grappling today. Now we have this unneeded, unwanted, and unjustified privatisation of the east coast main line—a service that has quietly and successfully improved the quality of journeys; a not-for-dividend operator that has delivered good value for money and reinvested profits in the service, unlike the private operator that walked away. There is no financial or operational case for privatisation. It is a transparently political act from a Government who are prepared to risk undoing the progress of the recent past. Passengers deserve better. I hope that Ministers will listen to the arguments made in the House today and halt this costly and unnecessary privatisation.

Simon Burns: I, too, begin by congratulating the hon. Members for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) and for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) on securing the debate. It is clearly a topic that arouses considerable interest, as has been seen in hon. Members’ speeches. I suspect that the policies advocated by the Greek chorus on one part of the Opposition Benches vary somewhat from the policies of the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) on another part of the those Benches.
	I particularly enjoyed the thoughtful speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), and there was an interesting speech from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), but I gently remind him that it is this Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition Government—and not simply the Liberal Democrats—who are making such record investments in our rail infrastructure.
	As usual, I listened with considerable care and interest to the extremely thoughtful speech of the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley), who raised a number of issues. First, he asked whether the headquarters would be in York. I understand why he did so: the issue is important to him, because York is his constituency. Obviously we would not expect to specify the location of the headquarters in any future franchise proposals, but there is nothing to prevent the new franchise company from choosing to locate its headquarters in York, especially given the current precedent.
	The hon. Gentleman sought to tempt me down another route, asking for an independent commission to be set up to establish whether passengers wanted services to be taken away from Directly Operated Railways. I am afraid that I must disappoint him. I will not be tempted on to the wayside. We have no plans to set up any such commission, although perhaps I can give him some consolation. We are working with the independent body Passenger Focus to ensure that we understand what passengers, on the basis of their own experiences, want from their rail service, and that will influence any proposals that emerge from the franchise process.
	The hon. Members for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), for Livingston (Graeme Morrice), for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) and for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) all made their customary contributions. I am afraid that, while their delivery may have gained in rapidity, theirs is a message that I have heard many times before. I am sorry that they are not on message in relation to their hon. Friend the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). I think it would be fair to say—they will be proud of this—that they would like an outright renationalisation of the whole railway system.

Ronnie Campbell: I never said that.

Simon Burns: No, but I think that that conclusion could be drawn from what the hon. Gentleman has said. [Interruption.] He is being a little too coy now. We do know his history; he does have form. I do not think that even the hon. Member for Nottingham South is advocating an outright renationalisation.
	The debate is so important, and of so much interest to so many people, because the east coast franchise serves so many communities and businesses, and helps to drive the economy along the length of the country, from London in the south to Aberdeen and Inverness in Scotland. I am grateful for my second opportunity in less than three weeks to discuss the franchise. We needed to revisit the issue today because Members felt that, given the high level of interest, the last debate—which was restricted to one and a half hours—was not long enough.
	It is clear that the inter-city coast franchise is a valuable one. That, in my view, is a major part of why it should be returned to the private sector as soon as possible, as was originally envisaged by Lord Adonis when he brought it into temporary public ownership as Secretary of State in 2009. He said—I am repeating this for a reason—
	“I do not believe that it would be in the public interest for us to have a nationalised train operating company indefinitely.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 July 2009; Vol. 712, c. 232.]
	The work that has been done on the east coast franchise in the last three and a half years of public ownership, to which many Members have rightly referred, will allow an operator from the private sector to apply its own skills and innovative thinking to building long-term value for both the taxpayer and passengers on the route. I was informed during the Westminster Hall debate two weeks ago that Lord Adonis had changed his views on the ownership of the franchise, but I have not, and the Government have not. We remain committed to obtaining, for east coast passengers and for the taxpayer, the great benefits of franchising that we have seen since privatisation.
	I think it is very interesting that the noble Lord and the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), along with the shadow Secretary of State, put out a press release this morning in advance of the debate. I would love to know the date of the telephone conversation the hon. Member for Nottingham South had with Lord Adonis when he told her he had changed his mind. I would be very grateful if she would intervene and tell me. [Interruption.] She says that she had a telephone conversation—[Interruption.] She said she never had one?

Dawn Primarolo: Order. We must have a debate across the Dispatch Box so it can be recorded. We do not want prompting and responses from any Member who does not have the Floor.Minister, you have the Floor.

Simon Burns: I was wondering whether the hon. Lady was going to intervene.

Lilian Greenwood: I intervene merely to confirm that I have not had any telephone conversation with the noble Lord since we last spoke over the Dispatch Box.

Dawn Primarolo: I call Simon Hughes. I am sorry; I mean Simon Burns.

Simon Burns: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is a real compliment.

Dawn Primarolo: I was getting ahead of myself; I apologise, Minister.

Simon Burns: I accept the apology.
	I have to say to the hon. Member for Nottingham South that that was an interesting and carefully worded response. I was not asking when she had a conversation since the last debate; I asked when she had the conversation in which Lord Adonis told her he had changed his mind. I am not going to get an answer, however, so we will make some progress.

Stewart Jackson: Will the Minister give way?

Simon Burns: No, I want to make some progress.
	By returning the east coast franchise to a private sector operator, we will provide certainty of ownership and much longer-term planning horizons that are not available to public sector operators. That is vital at a time when this Government are making significant investment in the franchise, both in the infrastructure through our rail investment strategy and in new rolling stock as part of the inter-city express programme. A strong private sector partner will be able to build on that investment and work with local stakeholders, the Department and the railway industry to ensure that the best possible deal is delivered for passengers and taxpayers.
	I heard the concerns raised by a number of hon. Members about services along the line and what they would like to see for their constituents and the service in general in any future provision.

Lilian Greenwood: The Minister recently said the east coast needs a long-term private sector partner that is able to cope with the totality of this change programme. Will he explain to the House in plain English what precisely he meant by that?

Simon Burns: Absolutely, and doing so will also help answer the points made by the hon. Member for Livingston. The Government are investing significantly in the east coast main line because its infrastructure needs to be improved and enhanced, but Governments are not awash with unlimited amounts of money. We are more ambitious for the east coast main line, and we believe from the experience of other franchisees that they are prepared to invest their money as well, to build on the investment that the Government provide, through Network Rail and other sources, to ensure that there is more investment in improving services for passengers, which is the key aim. That is why this Government are making record amounts of investment in infrastructure, amounting to billions and billions of pounds; such is our commitment to improving passenger services.

Ronnie Campbell: Will the Minister give way?

Simon Burns: No, because I am running out of time.
	Part of the success of franchising comes from having both a private sector that is willing and able to invest and manage risks and a Government who have the ability to step in, in the short term, to ensure the continued service of the railways in the event of a franchise failure. While we do everything we can to avoid such failure, we must be in a position to step in so that there is a continuation of service if a franchisee were to get into trouble, as happened with National Express on the east coast main line in 2009. That is the whole purpose of DOR. It is not a company like other companies providing
	franchise services within the rail network. It is there as a company of last resort in an emergency to ensure continuity of service under the Railways Acts. This should never be considered a long-term solution, and it is not an alternative model to franchising. Many Members totally misunderstood or did not get that point. This is fundamental: DOR is not an alternative model to franchising. We firmly believe that the private sector is best placed to deliver the best value for the passenger and taxpayer, and DOR allows us to make that choice.

Lilian Greenwood: Will the Minister give way?

Simon Burns: No; I am running out of time. The nature of Directly Operated Railways, as an interim measure and operator of last resort, means it would not be right or practicable for it to plan beyond the short term. In order to provide the stability and innovation that is needed for any business, in particular a rail franchise that serves the public, it is necessary to be able to plan well into the future and make investment decisions that have a horizon beyond the short term. To meet this need, the inter-city east coast franchise must be transferred back to the private sector.
	A number of Members have suggested that East Coast should be maintained in public ownership for an extended period to provide a comparator or baseline for future private sector operators on the franchise, or against operators on other parts of the network. This approach does not work. All franchises are different, and with changes to charges and funding occurring every five years, they even differ from themselves over time. Any attempt directly to compare one franchise with another, or even one incumbent with another on the same franchise, ends up simply comparing apples with pears. East Coast, a large inter-city franchise, is obviously different from Essex Thameside, a franchise providing commuter services on a much smaller route. Clearly, it would be folly to try to make valid comparisons between them. However, even with the apparently similar inter-city west coast franchise, differences in fleet size, cost base, network grant, investment plans, disruption and other factors make drawing a valid comparison with East Coast almost impossible.
	There is a comparator already in existence. In the past 17 years since privatisation, the number of passengers using the railways has doubled from 750 million to 1.5 billion. The number of journeys has doubled, and the amount of freight moving off our congested roads and on to the railways has increased by 60%. The comparator is the British Rail model that satisfied no one, failed to respond to its customers and was totally unsuccessful.

Sheila Gilmore: I thank all Members who have contributed to this debate, especially the Government Back Benchers, who made it a proper debate. We may not agree, but this is an important issue and we all need to be challenged and to have that discussion. However, I am disappointed that they seem determined to paint this debate as a strictly binary dispute—everything should be private, or everything should be public—hence the insistence on trying to push Labour Members to “come out”, as it were, as renationalisers. I am sure that some of my colleagues are unabashed re-nationalisers. Our dinosaur Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Easington
	(Grahame M. Morris), demonstrated that he might be in good company, in that 70% of the British public might also be dinosaurs on this issue.
	We do not need to approach this subject in a highly ideological way. There is a powerful pragmatic argument, whatever we think of the wider issues, in favour of retaining East Coast in public hands. That case was made powerfully by many Members. I do not want to ignore the contributions of others, but I would single out the powerful contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley), who asked some important practical questions and pointed out that to rush this process—even in the face of what the investigation into the west coast fiasco told the Government—is to put ideology above common sense. Unfortunately, the Minister was so determined to talk about our policies then and now that he still has not answered a number of the crucial questions. He has not said why the east coast route should be prioritised over other long-distance routes. He did not say why the evidence presented in previous debates was not—
	Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

FOREIGN-OWNED UK PROPERTY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Swayne.)

Simon Hughes: Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank Mr Speaker for granting me this Adjournment debate. I welcome the Minister for Housing to his place and am grateful for the opportunity at the end of today’s business to consider the purchase of housing in the United Kingdom by people or companies based abroad.
	When I was first elected—a long time ago now—the London Docklands development corporation was in charge of some of the dockland areas, including parts of my constituency. One of the most successful things it ever did was to have a scheme of building new homes and offering them for sale to people locally at discounted prices—or, at least, prices that did not make so much profit. There were huge queues of people and the homes were snapped up. There was a restriction on onward sales, whereby people had to live in the houses for a certain amount of time, and they met a lot of the unmet housing need of people who wanted to stay in Bermondsey, Rotherhithe or Surrey Docks but who could not afford to live there.
	Sadly, the situation is now completely different. I want to talk about the problem first before suggesting some solutions, based on comments made to me once people knew the debate was happening and on documents that have been in the public domain or press in the past few days. Let me start with two e-mails that I received before the debate.
	The first e-mail is from somebody in Battersea:
	“Good to see someone at least talking about the housing crisis in London.
	As an architect, part of my job is designing apartments in central London that I know are being sold off plan to buyers in China.
	Sometimes whole developments are sold in a day, with Chinese buyers paying in cash.
	That is before they are ever offered to the UK market, but should they ever be offered they would only be affordable to barristers and traders, not middle income workers like myself.
	It infuriates me, as I am still in a share house after 7 years of being in London.”

Mark Pritchard: The right hon. Gentleman mentions units being sold off plan before being offered to the UK market, but does he agree that by doing that some new home developers are discriminating against UK citizens?

Simon Hughes: That certainly appears to be the case. Let me give a constituency example. At the Elephant and Castle, just over the bridge, as people know, there is a controversial development of a former council estate, the Heygate estate, that is being done by Lend Lease, an Australian company. The first phase was either first put on the market in Malaysia or put on the market in Malaysia at the same time as it was advertised here. My constituents, who are desperate for the housing that was meant to replace the council estate, were more than angry to think that not only were they not getting the affordable housing they were promised at the promised
	levels but the property that was made available for private sale first was being block-bought off plan in Malaysia. This morning I went to look at an estate development in my constituency that has, I understand, been marketed principally in Thailand.
	To show the other side of the coin, let me cite a second e-mail that I received unprompted in the past couple of days, entitled “Housing developers targeting foreign buyers”. It states:
	“I am British and live in Singapore. Even though I have a work permit, the Government put an extra high stamp duty on property, and also restrict me from renting out a property I buy for the first three years of ownership.
	I gather that the first phase of the Battersea development was out-sold in Singapore with over 800 units going to Singaporeans. The main reason is the devaluation of Sterling combined with the rising costs of housing in Singapore. Why buy a two bed in Singapore for £1 million sterling when you can buy two in London for £800,000?”
	So in this country properties are increasingly being sold abroad and in other countries Governments are realising that they need to have some restrictions on the inward investment into their housing in order to look after their own people and ensure that they, or residents in these countries, who may not have been born there but have settled there, have opportunity in the market.
	The Mayor of London this week produced a document “The greatest city on Earth: ambitions for London”. I share that view of London, as I think it is the greatest city on earth, and also the ambitions for it. I am hugely proud to be a London Member of Parliament and to represent my constituency. In the same month as that was produced, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism published an article headed “The housing crisis: Westminster hit by soaring costs as it struggles with homeless crisis”. Today’s Evening Standard headline is “Rough sleepers double in 5 years: Mayor under fire after pledge to eliminate problem”. It gives the explanation as follows:
	“Experts said the increasing numbers were a consequence of housing benefit cuts, soaring rents and the closure of a dozen hostels and day centres”.
	Soaring rents are absolutely one of the reasons why people cannot find homes that they need.
	As hon. Members would imagine, a lot of work has been done in this area. I am grateful to Savills Residential, with which I have met. It produces regular reports and is about to do another one on who invests in this country, where and how. A very good report was produced by the Smith Institute in July 2012 entitled “London for sale? An assessment of the private housing market in London and the impact of growing overseas investment”. Deloitte produces an annual prediction and has just done so. Knight Frank has accurate, up-to-date figures, which I have looked at and drawn on.
	I have also looked at other articles, with titles such as “More restrictions on foreign property buyers in Switzerland”, “Property purchases: who can purchase property in Denmark?”. The Danes have clearly thought that they need to address this problem. I have looked at other general assessments—for example, an article in April entitled “Buyers not wanted: restrictions on international property investors”. It stated:
	“While the world’s investors are busy snapping up property in London, other countries are putting up barriers to foreign ownership”.
	That is the backdrop to this. I want to say a word about the politics and then where we ought to go. I am very clear that the UK has prided itself always on its international connections. London is a great global city, and my wonderful constituency has been a destination and place of passage for people from all over the world for centuries. Nobody I know in public life, in my party or in my constituency, does not appreciate the contribution that foreign investment has made into our country in the past and will continue to make in the future. We have also historically prided ourselves on being a country based on the free market, from which UK citizens and residents can acquire interests abroad, and where non-UK citizens and residents, and companies registered outside the UK can acquire interest in property in this country. Most people know that many, if not most, of our leading companies now have foreign owners. I often raise the issue of Thames Water and its failure to pay adequate taxes, but it is, in effect, an Australian company and many of our other utilities are also run by foreign owners.
	The reality is that my country, my city and my constituency are desperately short of homes. In particular, we are desperately short of homes to rent, for shared ownership and to buy at prices that are affordable to the average income earner or average family.

Andy Slaughter: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on making pertinent and timely points that my constituents will recognise. Are not these properties being marketed abroad because of the type of property being built? High-value, high-rise properties are the ones being built and the fault lies with the planning authorities, the Mayor and some borough councils, such as my local one, which are giving permission for tens of thousands of the type of unit that appeals to Malaysian investors but is completely unaffordable to his constituents and mine?

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We do not always agree, but he makes a good point. Many of the properties that are being built are specifically built with the probability that they will be sold easily in the foreign market. These are not family houses; these properties are mainly flats, often studio, one-bedroom or two-bedroom flats—small flats—which will either be buy to rent, will be used occasionally by somebody from abroad who might come here a couple of times a year on business or will be just kept as an investment. There is evidence that a lot of these places have nobody in them at all; they are simply bought as an investment in this country and will be sold later at a higher price. I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
	I checked the Office for National Statistics figures today. The average house price in the UK this year is £238,000, in London £414,000 and in my borough £389,000. Median employee earnings monthly in the UK are £505, in London £613 and in my borough £630. It will not surprise anybody in the Chamber to know that the gap between earnings and cost is growing and growing, and London is the place where the difference is greatest.
	In London, just to keep pace with demand, best estimates suggest that we need at least 50,000 more homes each year, twice as many as are currently being built, and 20,000 a year more than the Mayor of London’s target. Central London, which for housing purposes
	often includes part of my borough and my constituency, is now an area where, according to the best figures, more than one third of all buyers are from overseas, and two thirds of all new-build property is sold to non-UK purchasers—a third of the total and two thirds of the new-build property. Over a third of properties are sold to companies from China and the Asia-Pacific region, more than one in 10 to buyers in the middle east and north Africa, and about 8% each to purchasers from western Europe, and to eastern Europe and the former Soviet states.
	I understand why London is a popular place for investment—the value of the pound, the fact that it is outside the eurozone, very low interest rates, and the fact that it is a world-class city with English as its main language. According to Knight Frank, average prices in prime property—property priced at more than £1 million —in London have risen by 50% from 2009 and more than 7.5% in the past 12 months alone. Compared to New York or Singapore, it is clearly a much more successful investment. Some purchasers buy these homes to live in, some to let, some as a home additional to their principal home or as a third home, and some buy simply as an investment.
	These purchasers are on to a good thing for them, and the developers who sell to them are on to a very good thing for themselves as well. Developers find foreign purchasers—this relates to the question from the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter)—often more willing than UK purchasers to buy straight from plan. They pay their money up front, which helps fund the development as a whole. London property commands good prices in the global market, so this maximises the returns and therefore the profits of the developers. It is a very successful response to international housing demand. It does not help the people I see in my surgery every week who want a first home or a home they can afford.

Mark Pritchard: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way—he is being very generous. Does he agree that there would be a little more understanding of new home developments such as those being built by Barratt if the units, when they became available, were offered to everybody, wherever they live, at the same time, rather than some that are left over being offered to local British buyers?

Simon Hughes: This is a real issue. I shall put some suggestions to the Minister, of which I gave him notice earlier today, so I hope I am not taking him completely by surprise.
	People who have lived here for five years, 10 years, 15 years or all their life now cannot find a place they can afford. More offensive, even if they see them, they suddenly discover that the properties have been offered for sale abroad and are not available, or by the time people in this country can get their finances together, somebody has bought the lot. That is an unacceptable practice. Free market economics is a good starting point for the global economy, but responsible Governments, including I hope those with my colleagues in Government, should always be willing to intervene in the market where there is good reason and where the market is not
	working for the purposes that are the priority. Meeting housing need is now the priority, not meeting global housing demand.
	We cannot go on as we are. We do not have enough land to build on at a reasonable price, there is much too little building of affordable housing, and now there is increasing purchase by foreign owners of the property that does become available. We need more supply and we need to moderate the demand that is forcing up prices even more. The purpose of this debate is to put down a marker that there needs to be a response at central Government level, at London government level and at local government level as well. I am not the only person who thinks that. Colleagues across the House and in different sorts of constituencies share my view. Even if I cannot get all my wishes announced in the spending review next week, I hope that at the latest by the time of the Budget next year I can persuade colleagues to make the sort of changes we need. I hope also that I can get the two Select Committees—Treasury and Communities and Local Government—and the National Audit Office to look into the subject, because I know they have an interest and think they would do a good job.
	We want a change of policy, a change of strategy. We want a big change in the number of affordable homes available for residents of these islands, and we want it now. I will give the Minister my shopping list now, so that he has time to respond.
	I hope that work outside this place and by the Select Committees and the NAO will be helpful on this, because I would like the Government to compile a report on legislation passed elsewhere to tackle this problem. As I said, Singapore and Denmark have taken action in recent years, and I understand that Australia, Canada, Thailand and some states of the USA have done so, too. Those are not socialist republics; they are countries with free-market economies that understand they have to do something to look after the people within their shores, to whom they have an obligation.
	I should be grateful if the Government, over the next few weeks, commissioned up-to-date research, using the all the sources available, into the extent to which residential property acquired by individuals who are not domiciled or resident here or companies that are not registered here is: acquired for investment only and kept empty; occasionally used; occupied primarily by staff; a home other than the principal home; or rented out. If the information could be broken down by local authority and postcode, that would be helpful. This is not just a London issue; it affects the west midlands and many of the big cities in England and other parts of the UK.
	There may be policy and tax changes we could make. We cannot discriminate between UK and other EU citizens on the basis of their citizenship—I understand that entirely. However, it seems to me that we could have differential stamp duty or council tax, or another form of acquisition or disposal tax, or an annual asset tax, on properties held by non-EU citizens or companies based outside the EU. Secondly, we could have differential council tax or other tax by category of use, so a second or third home or a company-let flat, for example, would be in different categories. I am less certain that this would be the answer to many of the problems, but we could have differentiation of tax or council tax by price, with the aim of adding an extra tax on the middle-ranking
	properties, which are the ones that our constituents want to buy. That might have adverse knock-on effects, so I am not categorically proposing that, but I think the idea should be considered.
	I believe it would be possible to have priority bidding for rent, shared ownership or purchase for people who have lived in the area for a certain period. We could not do that by nationality, probably, but we could do it by length of residence. Councils are now allowed to give priority on their waiting lists to people who have lived in the area for a certain period, so surely we could do the same in the sale, shared ownership and rental sectors. We could require residential properties to be advertised in this country at the same time as or before they are advertised anywhere else. We could do what the London Docklands development corporation did, which is ensure that properties are initially offered locally. There would be legal questions to deal with, but we could consider it. Finally, we could give tax incentives to people or companies willing to invest in affordable housing for rent, shared ownership or sale at below-average prices, rather than give them only to those who want to build expensive properties. We could incentivise the right sort of investment.
	We could pilot these proposals, or give powers to the Mayor or local authorities in London and elsewhere to try differential planning and council tax arrangements, to see the effects on the market. As the Mayor of London has suggested, we could ask the Government to make sure that any taxation—for example, stamp duty—generated in a particular local authority from a certain type of property goes into the housing fund for that local authority.
	I am open to any solution that works. I hope that the Minister and his Department are open to helping us to tackle this major and growing concern to voters of all parties and none, and all our constituents. I do not think we can say that nothing can be done.

Mark Prisk: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) on securing a debate on this important matter and on offering, as usual, a range of ideas. I received his shopping list—thankfully it was not confused with Mrs Prisk’s shopping list, which might have been awkward—and take it in exactly that vein, as a set of positive suggestions. It recognises some of the challenges, some of which I will seek to answer. I also undertake to reflect in detail on his list’s itemised elements, rather than seeking to do so in the remaining 11 minutes.
	The right hon. Gentleman has a strong record of speaking eloquently and frequently about housing stress in London. I will preface my remarks by looking at the housing market as a whole and then focus on the question as it relates to London, because I think that is where the heart of the problem lies. For too long now, regardless of which party has been in government, our housing markets have been dysfunctional. From my political background, and my professional background as a surveyor, I think that this country has probably built only half the homes we need year on year for perhaps a generation.
	As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, that has caused a long-term housing shortage and, with it, significant social problems, and that is especially true in Greater
	London. That is why the coalition Government are determined to take a different approach. Our housing strategy seeks to be comprehensive and to address both supply and demand and both freehold and leasehold, and it seeks to start to reverse the loss of 421,000 affordable homes that, sadly, we saw under the previous Administration. It is why we are reforming the planning system to speed up the development process, why we are unlocking large sites to create lasting settlements, and why we are building over 170,000 more affordable homes. It is also why we are seeking to create a bigger and better private rented sector that gives tenants greater choice and quality.
	At the same time, we are supporting demand for new homes through the Help to Buy equity loan scheme. Boosting demand matters, especially after the record lows of recent years. I believe that not just because I am a passionate supporter of home ownership, but because a rise in demand gives builders the confidence to accelerate building and can boost overall market supply, including of affordable homes. That is an important point about how the flow of cash and investment helps the market as a whole, a point I will return to in the moment.
	On the specific question of foreign investment in housing, it is natural to look principally at London. We have to recognise that London, as the right hon. Gentleman correctly said, is a truly global city; perhaps it is the global city. It has not only the fastest growing economy and population in the UK, but immense international appeal. I think that Members on both sides of the House recognise that as a highly desirable position to be in.
	London’s success is in part the result of our open and free markets. Being a global city brings many economic benefits, with wealth creation and inward investment in jobs. Only a week or so ago the Mayor announced the securing of £1 billion of Chinese investment in the area that used to be covered by the old London Docklands development corporation but is now an enterprise zone, which is a very welcome long-term investment. The preparedness of others to invest here is a vote of confidence both in this country’s current economic strategy—that of the coalition—and in London’s future. I think that that openness is also vital to the character of London. It is a diverse city with a fantastic range of influences and cultures, and that is something to be welcomed.
	As a result of that, the housing market in London is quite different from the housing market across the rest of the country. Across the rest of the UK, domestic demand has suffered, with mortgage constraints and the difficulties builders have had in securing development finance, but in London the availability of foreign investment has kept development going. It has generated the cash flow that developers need to progress schemes.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentioned research. A recent report by the Greater London authority looked at barriers to housing delivery. It estimated that in prime London markets—the very highest—up to 75% of buyers are from overseas, and across London as a whole approximately a third of buyers are foreign. The report goes on to note that
	“construction activity demands investor sales—many, if not most, major London residential schemes only commence due to the expectation of the sale risk being mitigated by the chance to sell to UK-based and overseas investors.”
	We should also pay attention to what developers say. Tony Pidgley of Berkeley Homes recently said that to try to curtail foreign investment sharply is unrealistic, because it is only through such funding that Berkeley and others can build more homes and affordable homes. Before turning to the specific matters raised by the right hon. Gentleman, I will quote Tony Pidgley, who says:
	“Basically most sites that Berkeley are building are a third affordable, a third goes abroad, and a third to the UK market”.
	He goes on to say that without foreign investors,
	“London would be worse off and we would have fewer affordable homes and fewer private homes.”
	I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I totally understand the sense of frustration and challenge that local authorities and, indeed, local people may feel about this issue, but if we seek to curtail inward investment in a crude or ill-defined way I think we can both agree that it would lead to a significant set of unintended consequences.

Simon Hughes: I will be brief, because I know the Minister has other things to say. A report that is about to be published will show that, sadly, the figure given by Tony Pidgley of a third is much lower in reality, both in London and across the UK. Although that may be the theoretical quota, in my borough the figure is much lower and I fear that nothing like that is being delivered, because, to be blunt, companies get more money out of having fewer affordable homes.

Mark Prisk: Clearly local areas will differ, as will some builders, but what Mr Pidgley has said is reflected in some of the other builders’ remarks. We should not ignore them, but I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point.

Andy Slaughter: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Prisk: I am going to try to answer the points raised by the Member who secured the debate, if I may.
	A number of people have said—indeed, it has been mentioned in this debate—that perhaps the majority of homes owned by foreigners lie empty. We have looked at the evidence carefully and Jones Lang LaSalle says that the vast majority of international buyers—85%—let property once purchased. There is, therefore, a benefit in that homes built in response to that demand often—in 85% of cases—go on to be let.
	The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark also asked whether wider research could be commissioned for London in particular and, having looked at his shopping list, I can see that he also wants some granularity. He will understand that this is a devolved matter in London, but I will certainly bring
	this issue to the Mayor’s attention to see what granularity is available beyond the conventions of the English housing survey and so on.

Andy Slaughter: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Prisk: I am running out of time and want to answer some of the questions asked by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, if I may.
	The right hon. Gentleman raised the broader question of whether tax laws might differentiate in some ways. Property taxes such as stamp duty and land tax do not distinguish between UK and foreign nationals. That is partly because of EU laws, to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded, but it is also partly because of significant administrative difficulties. Although he will understand that tax policy, as I am constantly reminded, is for the Treasury, I will nevertheless make sure that Treasury Ministers are aware of his suggestions and concerns.
	The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned council tax differential rates, which we have discussed before. In April, having to listened to his concerns and those of others, we gave new powers to local authorities to establish an empty homes premium for long-term empty properties. Clearly, it is up to local councils how they do it, but I think that this is a power that is able to address many of the problems, perhaps in a simpler and more localised way than we thought. It is something that we will happily encourage, but as a localist Government we will not seek to impose it.
	The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned foreign comparators. We certainly look at them, but we have to be careful to look not just at fiscal or planning arrangements but at the picture as a whole. Having looked at Hong Kong, I know that although it has made certain fiscal changes its difficulty is that prices are still rising.
	I will respond to the right hon. Gentleman’s specific shopping list, but let me conclude by saying that I think there are perfectly understandable concerns about the potential impact of people from overseas buying homes in London. We should not, however, pretend that there are no benefits—I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not seek to do that. Inward investment has helped more homes to be built and it encourages confidence. We need a balance to be struck, but overall London benefits from being an open and diverse city, which both welcomes and, indeed, attracts investment from around the globe. I look forward to continuing this dialogue and to making sure that we continue to keep on top of what is a difficult and vexed issue that we hope to challenge.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.